Some things I'd like to see.

[Mjtheko]

I'd like to start off by saying this is gonna be a long read, and that some of the things i will mention here have been mentioned previously. This is a collection of things I (1st TX Maj. Mj) think would improve the game play, or just some cool ideas.

1: Map changes. There are far too many changes to list them off individually, so i'll give generalizations and examples. Maps should allow more flanking from the attacker, (EX, Open up the Union right flank on Sunken Lane a few yards more, so that the union can use the fence to attack the point from the north west) and more freedom to move from the point for the defenders. (EX: Pry Ford, Roulette lane, Pry House, and Hagerstown) The positional advantage the Attackers have if the Defenders lose the point is so much that the Defenders must hold very close to the point on these maps, You fix this by adding paths to re-take the point from, or lessening the cover on the point itself.

2: Louder In-game voice chat. Even if you turn up everyone by a bit, i would be happy. As of now it's hard to hear someone on the other side of a 20 man line in game while nothing is going on. This isn't a huge issue in organized groups like the 1st, due to order echoing. For Public disorganized play, and Officers not on with a group of their NCO's, this change is essential.

3: Fixing the "pushing" for lines. I can't tell you how many times I have been just squeezed out of line while aiming. And i'm usually leading, or acting as an NCO. I have no idea how this could be fixed, but a fix is needed here. a nice Quality of life change.

4: Ability to Password servers. It would help so many things.

5: Better Harper's Ferry maps. Most of them have one or more of the 3 worst traits for a map to have, and those are Extremely Limited routes of attack, Very Static positioning for both sides, and Ability to spawn-camp. (The Graveyard map has all of these) More like East woods. Or Hills Counterattack. I Love both of those from both sides.

6: Ability to take admin action from the tab menu. Or perhaps a new admin menu. It takes me too long as an admin to ban someone. Last night I had someone on the 1st TX server hitting team mates with the butt of their rife. I had to see what team he was on, Spawn in on that team to see his name, Hit f9. Find where he was, Fly to him, Hit E on him (harder than you may think) Then finally take admin action. Doing it via hitting Tilde and typing the command and exact steam name is also... harder than you may think.

7: Predictable Melee combat. as of now the range of stabs is really hard to work out. I can dill my guys where they will stab the enemy, but telling / showing them where they can be stabbed changes too much. (Hope we will have that full system with blocking and whatnot in the game sooner rather than later :P)

8: Make dying/ being out of line more punishing for the player out of line. Winning or losing is sometimes not enough to stop Rambo. Rambo likes going off and being... well... Rambo. Him being out of line should hurt him more. Maybe after dying out of line a few times Pvt Rambo can get the same "Go back to your men!" message officers get? or something similar?

9: Something for flags to do other than stand around in formation. Even allowing them to do some flag animations would be nice. Maybe allowing them to use the flagpole in melee?

I'm sure more ideas will come to me later, But regardless, I'll keep dumping hours into this glorious game.
Texans always move em!

[Oleander]

Looks good. I would also recommend that the capture area on certain maps be revisited. There are a few maps where the attacker is able to cap while the defender os sitting on the point while not being anywhere near the cap indicator.

[TrustyJam]

Looks good. I would also recommend that the capture area on certain maps be revisited. There are a few maps where the attacker is able to cap while the defender os sitting on the point while not being anywhere near the cap indicator.

Yep, those will be reverted back to their original smaller sizes again in the next update.

It was an experiment too see if bigger capture areas would open up the areas for different strategies - players still gathered on the capture area icons no matter the size of the cap zone however. The bigger capture areas of Miller's Cornfield and Maryland Heights also did not work very well with the new end game events.

- Trusty

[Oleander]

The bigger capture areas of Miller's Cornfield and Maryland Heights also did not work very well with the new end game events.

- Trusty

We noticed ;)

[Matt(Fridge)]

I agree with Mjtheko. Point 4 is 100% necessary, there needs to be locked servers to preserve the competitive scene of the game. On point 9 although it would not be the best melee weapon it is still better than nothing in a tight situation. Various animations with the flag would also be cool. It could even add a buff of some kind if you wanted it to.

[Cairnsy44]

on point 9, I agree. Maybe the initial spawn allows the flag bearer to have a pistol, but after he is killed, whomever picks it up at that point is weaponless, as they would have dropped their rifle.

Personally, I love the Graveyard map. Maybe it's because I get to be the 9th Vermont, but I do enjoy that one.

[RhettVito]

Maybe allowing them to use the flagpole in melee?
No

[LaBelle]

Maybe allowing them to use the flagpole in melee?
No

Why

[Poorlaggedman]

"Opening up" the map would have a severe detriment to gameplay. The style of gameplay relies on the complete opposite. In reality the skirmish areas represent an area of frontage in a larger positition and the "flanking" opportunities are already rampant much to the chagrin of any sort of cohesive gameplay which relies on dense formations. You open up the map further, you degrade that further. You could fit 500 players comfortably into the skirmish areas. You're never going to have a 500 man server.

Voice chat level is fine. Pushing is fine.

Like I've said many times as soon as passwords come, a great deal of people become 'closed event only' players. That's inevitable but why not develop the Alpha to a higher standard than the destructive non-competitive experience of every other similar game out there so the game stands a chance of not just being the same tired old niche that kills all these other similar games that absolutely need a closed server to be any fun at all.

[Mjtheko]

"Opening up" the map would have a severe detriment to gameplay. The style of gameplay relies on the complete opposite. In reality the skirmish areas represent an area of frontage in a larger positition and the "flanking" opportunities are already rampant much to the chagrin of any sort of cohesive gameplay which relies on dense formations. You open up the map further, you degrade that further. You could fit 500 players comfortably into the skirmish areas. You're never going to have a 500 man server.

Voice chat level is fine. Pushing is fine.

Like I've said many times as soon as passwords come, a great deal of people become 'closed event only' players. That's inevitable but why not develop the Alpha to a higher standard than the destructive non-competitive experience of every other similar game out there so the game stands a chance of not just being the same tired old niche that kills all these other similar games that absolutely need a closed server to be any fun at all.

Why is opening up the map bad?

Why does flanking hurt Cohesive gameplay?

I didn't mention 500 man servers??? Or anything related to changing the amount of players on maps???

Voice chat is too quiet. Workable, but still quiet. Hit F9 and fly around for a bit. You have to get crazy close to hear anything at all from lines.

Pushing is annoying. Not game breaking. A fix would be nice but is not required, and from what little I know about collision in programming, technically challenging.

I'm not going to turn this into another password thread. They would be good for everyone, and that's the end of it.

[EneCtin]

A big YES for 2, 7 and 8, ok for the rest but a big no for 9 dropping the flag in the mud..

For point 9, the flag bearer could be equipped by standard with a bugle and a sword. Bugle to emphasize the charge, retreat, form lines, fire by whatever orders the commander issued and the saber for limited defense while almost stationary holding the flag on the left shoulder?
Bugle signals could offer a 20% decrease in morale or something (for skirmishers in hearing range for example)

Voice chat is too quiet sometimes. I'd like the option on that players panel to increase or decrease individual volumes as needed

[Oleander]

Flag bearers are not musicians. At the very least there should a morale buff for a flag being in line.

[Hinkel]

A big YES for 2, 7 and 8, ok for the rest but a big no for 9 dropping the flag in the mud..

For point 9, the flag bearer could be equipped by standard with a bugle and a sword. Bugle to emphasize the charge, retreat, form lines, fire by whatever orders the commander issued and the saber for limited defense while almost stationary holding the flag on the left shoulder?
Bugle signals could offer a 20% decrease in morale or something (for skirmishers in hearing range for example)

Voice chat is too quiet sometimes. I'd like the option on that players panel to increase or decrease individual volumes as needed

Bugles for Flag Bearers? What should these boys do then? :eek:

https://warofrights.com/Pages_FieldReports/FieldReport36/Musicians.jpg

[Leifr]

They’re also somewhere around two years old now. I am not surprised that people forget about musicians being a thing. :(

[Sox]

Why does flanking hurt Cohesive gameplay?.

It's simple, with only 75 men per side we already struggle to present an adequate frontage on a lot of these maps, if you open them up even more then it will be impossible. It's game mechanic versus reality, to present the illusion of civil war combat, with so few players, you have to rely on them standing and fighting not running around the map for 70% of the game time. Making the maps wider will mean players will spend more time manouvering then they'll spend actually fighting.

Lets use Sunken Road as an example. With 75 men it's almost impossible to defend that position witout having to constantly shift troops along the line, & nine times out of ten the Union gain a foothold on the right because the Confederates could not/did not shift men over there in time to defend it....now imagine if that was wider. Wider maps would mean an end to cohesive fighting and a shift to a game mode where you are just running around maps until you find a gap. Now I realise that Sunken Road is an extreme example, but none the less it still holds true for any map in WoR. This is an FPS game, not a war game, and while tactics are important to a certain degree we have to remember the limitations imposed by the nature of the game. The attacking team in WoR rarely has to worry about maintaining a solid front line, because the ticket system does not really allow for counter attacks, in reality this was not so. However, in WoR any gap in the 'front line' of the defender can be readily exploited by the attacker.......hence with 75 men the defenders rarely ever have enough men to defend their entire front, and thus you have a 'game'.

Yes it still requires manouver, but to a 'limited' degree, widen the maps and the balance/cohesion is lost.

[Warboy]

It's simple, with only 75 men per side we already struggle to present an adequate frontage on a lot of these maps, if you open them up even more then it will be impossible. It's game mechanic versus reality, to present the illusion of civil war combat, with so few players, you have to rely on them standing and fighting not running around the map for 70% of the game time. Making the maps wider will mean players will spend more time manouvering then they'll spend actually fighting.

Lets use Sunken Road as an example. With 75 men it's almost impossible to defend that position witout having to constantly shift troops along the line, & nine times out of ten the Union gain a foothold on the right because the Confederates could not/did not shift men over there in time to defend it....now imagine if that was wider. Wider maps would mean an end to cohesive fighting and a shift to a game mode where you are just running around maps until you find a gap. Now I realise that Sunken Road is an extreme example, but none the less it still holds true for any map in WoR. This is an FPS game, not a war game, and while tactics are important to a certain degree we have to remember the limitations imposed by the nature of the game. The attacking team in WoR rarely has to worry about maintaining a solid front line, because the ticket system does not really allow for counter attacks, in reality this was not so. However, in WoR any gap in the 'front line' of the defender can be readily exploited by the attacker.......hence with 75 men the defenders rarely ever have enough men to defend their entire front, and thus you have a 'game'.

Yes it still requires maneuver, but to a 'limited' degree, widen the maps and the balance/cohesion is lost.

agreed, if their going to widen the maps then higher player population is needed

[Charles Caldwell]

*Progress!*

[Mjtheko]

It's simple, with only 75 men per side we already struggle to present an adequate frontage on a lot of these maps, if you open them up even more then it will be impossible. It's game mechanic versus reality, to present the illusion of civil war combat, with so few players, you have to rely on them standing and fighting not running around the map for 70% of the game time. Making the maps wider will mean players will spend more time manouvering then they'll spend actually fighting.

Lets use Sunken Road as an example. With 75 men it's almost impossible to defend that position witout having to constantly shift troops along the line, & nine times out of ten the Union gain a foothold on the right because the Confederates could not/did not shift men over there in time to defend it....now imagine if that was wider. Wider maps would mean an end to cohesive fighting and a shift to a game mode where you are just running around maps until you find a gap. Now I realise that Sunken Road is an extreme example, but none the less it still holds true for any map in WoR. This is an FPS game, not a war game, and while tactics are important to a certain degree we have to remember the limitations imposed by the nature of the game. The attacking team in WoR rarely has to worry about maintaining a solid front line, because the ticket system does not really allow for counter attacks, in reality this was not so. However, in WoR any gap in the 'front line' of the defender can be readily exploited by the attacker.......hence with 75 men the defenders rarely ever have enough men to defend their entire front, and thus you have a 'game'.

Yes it still requires manouver, but to a 'limited' degree, widen the maps and the balance/cohesion is lost.

I'm not talking about widening the maps by 500 m to each side. Im talking about allowing more movement from both sides on more maps.

Defenders in any scenario, game or otherwise almost never *should* hold the entire front on a strategic and tactical basis. They should instead hold high value areas and then react to the attacker.
However im terms of "presenting realistic civil war battles" I'll concede that having two lines form up and blast each other from static positions is the predominant, realistic idea everyone has in their heads for warfare in this era.

I could argue that efficent movement through rough terrain requires more "unit cohesion" and contributes "cohesive gameplay" or that coordination between multiple forces in multiple areas of the map also requires significantly more cohesion than a single group in a single area fighting a single enemy.
But you guys might be talking about a totally different kind of cohesion entirely. Cohesion in terms of working parts of a gameplay experience presenting the Civil War.

I don't play this game to show a realistic experience of the Civil War. I don't lead my men into cinematic situations purely for the eye candy. I go into every map trying to win. Thats a personal motivation, and may explain why i want a more competetive 75 vs 75 person game.

Towards that end, more flanking is great for the game. To use sunken road once again. Lets say that the aforementioned scenario did occur, and while the Confederates still hold the point, the Confederate right has fallen to Union control. The Confederates could just sit on the point and expect to win, and they might given the fact that the union is at a severe tactical disadvantage on this map and can only take fights where they are at a disadvantage, or equal positionally. Or, the confederates could try to re-take their right by sending a force through the corn, and either get behind the union as they advance towards the point, or try to co-ordinate with other confederate lines to bait the union shots by advancing down either fence, then charge while the union is reloading and distracted. (They both work. Ive either commanded or been a part of both on the CSA side.)

Why i suggested extending the map border on sunken is because to the north of the point there is a road and fence already moldeled there, and the desertion line is very, very close to it. Just allowing the Union and Confederacy to go there opens up the map far more, and gives the union another attack route. Thereby allowing union commanders to have more choice in where they go, and more opportunities to try to win. Everywhere else on sunken lane the union gets stuffed.

If widening some maps to allow flanking is bad, should we instead narrow them?

I don't know about you but the narrower the map the more i have to tell my men they have to charge into certian death. Over and over again in some cases. Not exactly enjoyable Long - term.

[RhettVito]

Why
Then it would just turn into holdfast with people running around playing music and charging with the flag trolling it would be a waste of development time to add something like that plus then people would play flag-bearer for the wrong reason too many people want to re-enact The Patriot

[Cairnsy44]

Then it would just turn into holdfast with people running around playing music and charging with the flag trolling it would be a waste of development time to add something like that plus then people would play flag-bearer for the wrong reason too many people want to re-enact The Patriot

God, I hated that movie. Such potential....

[Sox]

I don't play this game to show a realistic experience of the Civil War. I don't lead my men into cinematic situations purely for the eye candy. I go into every map trying to win. Thats a personal motivation, and may explain why i want a more competetive 75 vs 75 person game.

I wasn't talking about the civil war, I was talking about WoR as a game, and I've seen your regiment in many a 'cinematic' moment. Also being on point does not guarantee a win in this game, you can actually be out-fought as well. You keep talking about opening up more points of attack but with 75 players per side it's not a point of attack, it's just another gap in the line. You're not talking about tactics, you're talking about finding a point on the map that the other side can't cover because they don't have the troops to do it, simply because of game design. When all is said and done, this is an American Civil War fps game, all the mechanics are geared towards fighting that way, wishing/wanting it not to be what it is, that's just counter productive.

In esscence you are not talking about flanking, you are talking about the ability to attack and undefended part of the map. A real flank attack requires that you to hold your enemy in position so that he cannot shift troops to defend his flanks. For example Lee extending his front at Chancelorsville, to hold the enemy attention while Jackson shifted his men to the flank. On the WoR Sunken Road map the Confederates, as it stands now, cannot cover their entire front, meaning that they already have to shift troops along the front in order to stop the Union attacks.......all you are suggesting is that they extend this, so that we have to do even more running around, & even less fighting. No matter how much people might want it to be, this is not Battlefield/Call of Duty/Post Scriptum et al', and it's never going to be.

[LaBelle]

Then it would just turn into holdfast with people running around playing music and charging with the flag trolling it would be a waste of development time to add something like that plus then people would play flag-bearer for the wrong reason too many people want to re-enact The Patriot

If you can't keep a flag bearer in line that's not my fault.

[LaBelle]

I wasn't talking about the civil war, I was talking about WoR as a game, and I've seen your regiment in many a 'cinematic' moment.

Knock off the regiment bashing, lmao. Like that adds anything to the discussion, Jesus.

[Sox]

Knock off the regiment bashing, lmao. Like that adds anything to the discussion, Jesus.

Actually that was a compliment.

[Mjtheko]

Sox I've got a video for you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVQ0L-t5i_Y&t=1s This is the 1st TX and 1st GA in an event. "A real flank attack requires that you to hold your enemy in position so that he cannot shift troops to defend his flanks." Tell me how what happens in that is not a flanking maneuver by your own definition. This game already is a tactical one. I can go on talking for 30 mins on the "meta" of every map on this game with MS paint open drawing on maps. There's a balance between running around and fighting that is healthy for the game. Right now I happen to think that some maps on Antietam are too narrow, and are limiting the tactical opportunities. There's a place in the game for lots of "fighting" on narrow maps already.

I don't even think you want what you talk about. What if the confederates could hold the entire front on sunken lane? (with the current server size) The union would be forced to press W and shift across a wide open area to even try to win, and the Devs would be forced to give the union a 2 or 3 to one ticket advantage to "balance" the map.

Let's take your argument to the extreme. If flanking apparently doesn't exist in this game and it's all essentially an "exploit" of game mechanics let's cut the maps in half. Sunken lane is now simply a road with 2 fences and corn behind it and the union have to sprint down a wide open hill to get there. The map would be even worse than Bridge crossing. Or Burnside. But hey at least one side is not running around trying to counter the attackers and is "fighting" quite often.

[Poorlaggedman]

At the very least there should a morale buff for a flag being in line.The way I see it, fear does not care about things that might lift your spirits. Just because it makes you less likely to run away doesn't mean it's going to make your heart beat any slower. You can argue that having other friendly players nearby wouldn't either but I think the presence of living friendly soldiers is a lot less terrifying than being isolated or in Skirmish formation and that's generally the gist you get from writings. The bonuses of having a flag present are already a major lift to the staying power of a group of players.




Why is opening up the map bad?

Why does flanking hurt Cohesive gameplay?

It's simple, with only 75 men per side we already struggle to present an adequate frontage on a lot of these maps, if you open them up even more then it will be impossible. It's game mechanic versus reality, to present the illusion of civil war combat, with so few players, you have to rely on them standing and fighting not running around the map for 70% of the game time. Making the maps wider will mean players will spend more time manouvering then they'll spend actually fighting.

Lets use Sunken Road as an example. With 75 men it's almost impossible to defend that position witout having to constantly shift troops along the line, & nine times out of ten the Union gain a foothold on the right because the Confederates could not/did not shift men over there in time to defend it....now imagine if that was wider. Wider maps would mean an end to cohesive fighting and a shift to a game mode where you are just running around maps until you find a gap. Now I realise that Sunken Road is an extreme example, but none the less it still holds true for any map in WoR. This is an FPS game, not a war game, and while tactics are important to a certain degree we have to remember the limitations imposed by the nature of the game. The attacking team in WoR rarely has to worry about maintaining a solid front line, because the ticket system does not really allow for counter attacks, in reality this was not so. However, in WoR any gap in the 'front line' of the defender can be readily exploited by the attacker.......hence with 75 men the defenders rarely ever have enough men to defend their entire front, and thus you have a 'game'.

Yes it still requires manouver, but to a 'limited' degree, widen the maps and the balance/cohesion is lost.

Pretty much what Sox says. Literally the main offensive tactic is currently making a mad dash for an undefended area. Way too much of WoR is both teams racing each other at full sprint to a little farmers fence. You open up the map, you make that worse than it already is. People would rather gamble on a sweeping flanking motion than focus on hard fundamentals that will win you the match in the long run.

I didn't get WoR to march around in a 5 man group representing a regiment in a grand battle. That's not as ridiculous as it sounds with the size of the battlefield and the future promise of grander battles. Seventy-five players is not enough to hold even half the front of most skirmish maps, 500 would be. I don't want to see the maps get much bigger. By a few rods, that's about it. Some of the desertion areas are indeed oddly placed but the fact that teams are creeping on the edges of the map was probably not intended in the scenario design. The scenarios should be revisited by the level makers at some point based on how they play.

[Oldsod]

I have not been playing for long and a few guys of the regt that I am in took me into a skirmish. One of the things that struck me was that we could not join as a squad/group and that needs changing. if a regt can supply a whole squad (for example) and they joined together then you are more likely going to get better formations etc and we get to play alongside our regt buddies. also regts/officers that organise the battle will get to know which complete squads etc will be better located in the line if they have played together already a few times. otherwise I am enjoying dying a lot :)

[spacenavy90]

Yep, those will be reverted back to their original smaller sizes again in the next update.

It was an experiment too see if bigger capture areas would open up the areas for different strategies - players still gathered on the capture area icons no matter the size of the cap zone however. The bigger capture areas of Miller's Cornfield and Maryland Heights also did not work very well with the new end game events.

- Trusty

On this topic, I had an idea the other day during an event in which a cap point was taken in a way that frustrated the losing team.
Currently it seems that a player is either capturing a point or not (binary, yes or no). What if instead that capture status per player was determined by a gradient based on distance from the center of the capture point? Let me explain with an example.

Say 5 CSA players are defending a capture point standing very close to the center of the point, when 6 Union attackers occupy the outer edge of the capture zone. In the current system, it is my understanding that the Union would begin to take the point despite only having a slight numeral advantage and being far from the actual capture point. With my "system" and in the simplest terms, the Union would have to be closer to the center of the capture zone to begin taking the point as their per-player capture "value" (a float point between 0-1) would increase upon approach. I believe this would make it more difficult to 'cheese' the system and would possibly allow for quicker capture times from decisive offensives. In the current implementation it takes quite long to actually capture the point with zero resistance.

I'm not very good at putting my thoughts into words, so if you have any questions please let me know.

[Sox]

Let's take your argument to the extreme. If flanking apparently doesn't exist in this game and it's all essentially an "exploit" of game mechanics let's cut the maps in half. Sunken lane is now simply a road with 2 fences and corn behind it and the union have to sprint down a wide open hill to get there. The map would be even worse than Bridge crossing. Or Burnside. But hey at least one side is not running around trying to counter the attackers and is "fighting" quite often.

First of all, I did not say that flanking did not exist, I said that actual flanking requires that you engage the enemy on his front, so that he cannot move to counter. You are not talking about flanking, you are talking about making the maps bigger so that even more dashes into empty, undefended, spaces can be made. As Poorlaggedman has pointed out, it's just chasing people around a map that's too big. Obviously some maps are too narrow, but who ever said this was supposed to be an even playing field, it's not & it never will be, that's the challenge represented by playing a historical FPS.

[Mjtheko]

I'm arguing for more flanking opportunities on some maps to help the attackers flank. Not empty space for people to run through. I'm not arguing for "attacker only" lanes.


You are not talking about flanking, you are talking about making the maps bigger so that even more dashes into empty, undefended, spaces can be made.
I would appreciate if you don't straw man me sox.

Personally I think hookers push could have the empty, effectively unplayable space on both sides cut by at least 500 feet. There's a difference between useless space and flanking routes to fight over. I'm also arguing for defenders to have more cover to re-take the point on some maps. Like Poorlaggedman said, "The scenarios should be revisited by the level makers at some point based on how they play."

I'm not sure what "People would rather gamble on a sweeping flanking motion than focus on hard fundamentals that will win you the match in the long run. " means. Clarification please :P

The argument that "This is a Historical FPS so where we draw a fake line we call the "map border" should not include the concept of balance" makes no sense on it's face.
The sentiment I understand, Some maps will never be balanced nor should they be based purely upon historical context. (Burnside i'm looking at you). But the historical accuracy cost between creating another crossing for burnside bridge, for example, and moving a fake map border 100 feet is fairly large. Or adding ambient smoke to block sight-lines, or an extra bush here and there, Is fairly large. No historian will think twice about a new group of bushes on a map. Or pushing the border out to include more area.

[A. P. Hill]

I'm arguing for more flanking opportunities on some maps to help the attackers flank. Not empty space for people to run through. I'm not arguing for "attacker only" lanes. ...

Not sure that I see the "difference".

Maybe you can be more specific, as to how you said you need more room to manoeuvre and yet not expect more empty space to be allowed on the skirmish maps.

The way I see it, you cannot have the one without providing the other.

[Mjtheko]

Empty space for people to run through is like the area behind the cornfield on hookers push. Or the confederate far left flank on otto sherrick farm. Area with no tactical value. An example of adding "empty space" would be expanding the union left more on evening east woods. (Its an open field with no real landmarks, hills, etc.) An example of adding a viable route would be opening up the union far right more on the same map so they can get on the fence that intersects with the cornfield closer to their spawn. Or like previously mentioned, opening up the union right on sunken lane.

[Poorlaggedman]

I agree that the dead space is not really needed. It perhaps seems amusing to spawn players so far away to start but you could justify doing the same for many scenarios not just Hooker's Push. It'd also perhaps serve some performance purpose if the entire Antietam could be chopped up into their own little worlds, certainly if the large map and the great deal of models for the various regiments for the entire battle put a strain on the servers or the clients so much.


I'm not sure what "People would rather gamble on a sweeping flanking motion than focus on hard fundamentals that will win you the match in the long run. " means. Clarification please :P
Flanking is the immediate go-to tactic and it's usually done with the intention of just showing up on an enemy's flank using terrain to mask movements. It usually doesn't work but sometimes it does. It results in a lot of silly races to some fence posts between the two teams. The defender can't possibly occupy all of the frontage as it is. The areas being flanked aren't a breakthrough, they're just void space that the teams can't occupy all the time.

Let me know the next time you play and a frontal assault is attempted for anything other than cinematic purposes and without an overprotective farmer's fence or wall to align your formation on. It doesn't really happen. Yet most of the infantry experience at Antietam and the Civil War is some variation of a frontal attack with no real opportunities for mad dashes to occupy undefended sections of the enemy front. There's a lot that could happen with tactics that doesn't happen already in gameplay. There's a genuine avoidance of frontal action and a bonafide obsession with fences and full-out sprints to the flank already in gameplay and a major resistance to tactical innovation with a few factors helping that stay the case.

[LaBelle]

I'm going to wager that frontal charges against the enemy in a defensive position isn't the go-to at the moment because it typically loses you too many tickets to remain sustainable. I'll also wager that by "frontal attack," you're specifically referring to charging against a force significantly smaller than your own? In which case, I'd like to hear what the difference between that and making a "mad dash to an empty fence" is.

Frontal charges are attempted all the time by people new to the game, or do not have enough experience leading. Like all games, a meta has formed for this game and it mostly involves rushing an empty defensive position. One way to come at this is to place spawn points for each regiment, where each regiment spawns on an east or west flank, as opposed to all together. Likewise you could do the same for attackers. It's by no means a solid idea and needs to be thought out more, but it's a start.

[GrimJim]

Im pretty new to the game and here (aay first post!) I got this at the end of last November. Id just like to say in regards to maps i wouldn't mind seeing fortress storming map. That would be pretty wizard. Id like to do something more with the flag though too. Even if its just a big boot or a saber slash.

[Poorlaggedman]

I didn't say anything about charges.

Frontal assaults are the easiest ways to keep cohesion and lose people in the cheapest way. Isolated flanking attempts are not usually sustainable and result in costlier losses and players trickling back from the base spawn to get caught out-of-line.

It's become real fashionable to pretend that it's insane to intentionally attack the enemy to your front without running to grab empty space on one flank or the other. I'm not saying that's the only thing that should be done but in maps where there's any advantage seen to trying to catch the enemy off guard on a flank then it's all the attacking team will do the whole round.

There's very little emphasis on sustainable pushes that don't involve tip-toeing the edges of the boundary unless there's obvious cover to be used such as at the Piper Farm

[Sox]

I'm not saying that's the only thing that should be done but in maps where there's any advantage seen to trying to catch the enemy off guard on a flank then it's all the attacking team will do the whole round.

Yes, and once again Bloody Lane is the best example. Confederates have become so fed up of the constant attempts to 'flank' down the right hand edge of the map that they don't even bother defending it anymore. So the Union gleefully run into that empty space.....only to find they've not actually flanked the Confederates, because the enemy is facing them when they begin to move down the lane, and they're able to turn to face them because the Union are not conducting a frontal attack at the same time, in order to pin them down. That's basically what Poorlagged & others are trying to point out, if the enemy are able to turn or move, to face you, then you've not actually flanked them.

Tactics do require co-operation, and I'd suggest it's that which is lacking at the moment.

[LaBelle]

Ok, I see where the confusion is here. When you say "frontal assault," you're talking about a pin and flank maneuver. That's a common strategy on the Woods maps, especially on the 1st Texas server. My guys have been using it in coordination with a fire and advance system, and I've seen 1st Cav use something similar. So yes, we're in agreement there: A pin and flank/frontal assault needs to he utilized more.

[Sox]

Ok, I see where the confusion is here. When you say "frontal assault," you're talking about a pin and flank maneuver. That's a common strategy on the Woods maps, especially on the 1st Texas server. My guys have been using it in coordination with a fire and advance system, and I've seen 1st Cav use something similar. So yes, we're in agreement there: A pin and flank/frontal assault needs to he utilized more.

Exactly yes :) There is no doubt that any kind of advance against an enemy that is 'facing' you, is tough, but that's the nature of warfare in this era. The most exciting moments in WoR come when you are on that firing line, I would imagine that it was a big headache for the Devs when working on these Skirmish maps, because one step in the wrong direction, and it all turns into 'run and gun'.

[shr84]

Hello!
i gonna post this here because i am not able to start a new thread somehow....
my suggestion is:
please add the feature that whenever the commander or seargent etc. speaks a symbol (coud be his military rank symbol)
shows up on your screen somewhere (upper right, upper left for example) for the time he is speaking.

Atm its extremely irritating and missleading when lower rank players giving "FIRE!" or "CHARGE!" orders occasionally.
In many cases the whole line follows the order because they are unable to remember the voice of the person in charge.

I know, this problem is most likely only a problem in matches where randoms play together (e.g. beeing a regiment removes this confusion from the game) but since a big portion of the playerbase take part in these kind of PUG matches
it is a relevant issue imho.

Furthermore; it woud be a good thing if commanders and their seargents woud be able to bring order to the regiment by executing soldiers who are not following orders, without getting punished by the TK penalty system somehow.
In the real civil war this option was allways available to bring order by force.
Maybie remove TK penalty for CO and Seargents completely, but also making a "remove player from commander/seargent role" team vote mechanic as a protection for the players against obvious trolls/teamkillers.
To make this vote mechanic not a tool to stress everybody in the team the vote shoud only be triggered if 10 people (for example) request a vote call, furthermore, when its triggered, 90% of the team giving the call a "YES" shoud be
neccessary to degrade the player in the leading role to a common soldier.
The goal shoud be in any case to keep the game as comfortable as it is right now, but improve on the aspects of "LEAD AND RESPOND"

[Poorlaggedman]

Imagine going to a Civil War battlefield and instead of National Park Rangers there's a totally random guy off the highway doing a program on part of the battle that happened there. That's basically the leadership system now. Obviously the playerbase takes the ranks seriously. They'd be clamoring for them if they didn't exist but as I've said many times they do more harm than good when they are self-appointed roles. If there were no roles other than private then there'd have to be some mutual agreement forming between players. Since that doesn't happen too many players chasing after a cohesive game experience are willing to follow anyone who clicked on the role first. I know I'm not the only guy losing all interest in going along to get along following Joe Dirt from Phoenix with ten hours gameplay under his belt. There's a lot more of them than there are of useful and experienced people trying to take those roles.

Since there is a voice chat icon then instead of the voice icon showing up over their head a rank icon would be useful but first the ranks should really mean something in the first place. Very often times there are random people shouting orders. That's never going to change and I don't think it should, it'd disrupt too many other areas trying to empower leadership roles. The ranks in the game aren't necessary representative of whose running things and it will never always be the case.

[Gamble]

Furthermore; it woud be a good thing if commanders and their seargents woud be able to bring order to the regiment by executing soldiers who are not following orders, without getting punished by the TK penalty system somehow.
In the real civil war this option was allways available to bring order by force.

No, it wasn't. Lincoln himself even was wary about too many (beforehand court-martialed) soldiers officially being executed by a firing squad because of the moral hit it would mean on the general public. An officer who would randomly shoot soldiers running away/breaking would probably have to face court martial himself, but at the least I am relatively sure that he would loose the support of his men as well as his aides and fellow officers, rendering him unable to function in future battles or skirmishes.