Twelve Core Gameplay Improvements

[Daveallen10]

Well, it could be no one is gonna read this but I spent the time to write it all out so here goes...

Far from just being a wish list of additional features, below I have listed out several core gameplay changes (as well as quality of life improvements) which I think would dramatically improve existing gameplay in WoR while maintaining (and enhancing) the original vision. Some of these may have already been suggested in some form, but I wanted to compile my own list of the most critical items. I tried to order them in order of (perceived) importance.

1. Displayed Team tickets Along with Morale Level: The game needs to de-mystify the ticket system and make it clear to players (including officers) what the actual ticket count is besides the morale level. While displaying tickets is somewhat “gamey” the number is critical as it represents actual manpower available which officers would have known in real life. If you see your number dropping rapidly outside of a line battle, you know you have stragglers ramboing. This has an effect on the orders officers might give to preserve lives/tickets. Maybe that glorious charge really isn’t worth it.

2. Crouching in Formation should not count as “Skirmishing”: Currently, skirmish mode counts for a -3 ticket loss. Skirmishing is defined by crouching or being a certain distance away from other players when fighting. In my opinion, crouching should not count for a -3 ticket loss because it was legitimate tactic used by commanders in the war. Penalizing players for crouching is pointless and frustrating and has caused some units to simply discourage crouching in any situation which is unfortunate. This means a “good” team should never crouch because every soldier that dies counts as a loss of three men, which makes no sense. Crouching still causes slower reloads which I believe is a fair deterrent to encourage standing in lines in most cases.

3. Officers Can order Loose Skirmish line: Secondly, officers should be able to order a skirmish line if desired, allowing players to be more spread out. If players adhere to this formation as ordered, deaths should count as “in formation” (1 ticket). Loose skirmish lines were used to cover flanks and certain angles where an entire line formation would be impractical or a waste of manpower. Line battles would not become obsolete. Line formations still have inherent advantages: massed volleys against a smaller number of targets, unit cohesion and mobility, and creates the infantry mass needed for successful melee defense and offense. If a commander orders a solid battle line and a player is close by but still not in the line, that should be considered skirmishing (-3 tickets)

4. Death displays actual ticket loss, not % of morale loss reduction: Again, this would help to clarify the ticket loss for players so they understand the impact of their deaths to the team. The current text (morale loss reduced by 0/40/80 %) is confusing and meaningless to newer players. This will also help to reduce ramboing as players will see that their three kills don’t make up for a loss of 5 tickets. Additional text would be useful to direct players to understand why their death counted the way it did.

5. Battlefield Map: This is a big one. Showing player’s location and relative location of friendly formations would be extremely useful (perhaps some limited information on enemy formations which are engaged or spotted). Admittedly, this is a not a totally realistic feature for a "simulator", but it would improve gameplay dramatically and give players and commanders an understanding of the lines of battle and where reinforcement units need to be directed to plug gaps. A map would make up for the lack of battlefield communications (runners) which actual commanders would have had access to. Ideally, commanders could even draw arrows or place markers on the map to help coordinate movements of troops.

6. Better HUD Elements: As an overall quality of life improvement, a HUD updated is needed to show friendly units, officers, and particularly to differentiate between different regiments. Currently, the HUD shows minimal information to help the player determine where they need to be, particularly for newer players. Players often hit the HUD button after respawning and run without coordination towards the nearest icon or the capture point, getting mixed up with other regiments and generally creating a confusing battlefield. While the fog of war definitely plays a part in WoR, I think the current mechanic is just frustrating.

7. Group spawning at the reinforcement point: I believe it would help the flow of the game if respawns at the map entry reinforcement point come in groups. How this would work is that respawns would have to wait until a sufficient group could spawn in at the same time, or if a sufficient number of players were already present at the reinforcement point. This would help prevent individual players from running haphazardly across the battlefield to rejoin friendly regiments (many of these players get lost and die out of formation harming the ticket count). There could be a maximum wait time (such as 30-40 seconds) so that players do not need to wait for ages to respawn. Additionally, it could allow NCOs / officers to more easily keep order and direct the movement of respawning groups of players. Reinforcement units would march to the frontline as a group instead of streaming in one at a time unrealistically.

8. Team Army Organization Menu by player, Showing Regiment, Company, and Roles : I think that a menu is critical to replace the regiment selection screen (and available by hotkey in-game) so that the army organization is absolutely clear to players – particularly casual players and officers (and generals if they ever implement it). I want a menu showing regiments, with available slots and roles clearly shown, and player names next to them. No more days of regiments going into battle without officers, or flagbearers, or NCOs. It should be clear up front before anyone goes into battle if any critical roles are not filled. For a quick reference, I’m talking about something akin to Squad, Post Scriptum, or similar games where the team organization is clear and distinct, and the roles of each player can be easily referenced on a hotkey menu. This will also future-proof the game in the event that Regiments are further split into multiple companies (which I think would be a good idea).

9. Melee block key: I have seen that this is already in the roadmap, but I think it deserves mention –melee right now is overpowered and pretty lacking in back-and-forth. The ability to [attempt] to block an attack would really improve the experience. Melee hitboxes also need to be reduced somewhat as you had strike an opponent from a bit too far away IMO.

10. NCO’s can give some limited directions and commands (besides verbal): This would assist in carrying out orders, particularly when the officer is absent or not doing anything. The ability to point would be great, and NCOs should also have binoculars. If the nearby officer dies, the NCO should be able to instruct formations using the key commands.

11. Moving while crouched: This would be a useful quality of life improvement that would coincide with #2. This would again improve realism and reduce the frustration of having to stand up to move to a position a few feet away to crouch in cover.

12. Flag bearer can engage in melee combat: This would be useful so the flag isn’t so vulnerable in melee combat. Even better, give the flag bearer a sword or pistol so they aren’t so useless. Many flag bearers were NCOs, not just random grunts.

[TrustyJam]

Hey!

Thanks for the list. :)

I’m away at the moment so can’t give you a detailed reply currently.

I’ll just list give a few pointers for now.

1) an officer will not know the exact strength of his own regiment mid-combat not other regiments within the army mid-combat.
We had plain numbers back in the early alpha days. Players would use them as a check up on whether or not they hit anything. Also, we’ve been scaling available tickets based on player population on a server for a year or so now - showing actual numbers will mean you’ll see such ticket numbers as 45,47 vs 28,19 tickets.

2) it is quite possible that the longer reload in itself is enough - the morale penalty alone wasn’t enough when we introduced it (majority of all players kept kneeling throughout entire matches) which is why the longer reload penalty was introduced as well.

3) I believe there is a skirmish order available currently for the officers, you’re right though a graphical marker is something we’d like to add to it.

4) Just as the overall team morale/tickets is based on the server population as is the morale loss (which is why it is a percentage). You’d run into sometimes seeing you cost 5 morale and other times 14,67 morale when dying out of line both times.

5) This is roughly the idea for generals.

6) Agrre, HUD is in development as the rest of the game. :)

7) You already spawn in waves (groups) as well as only with your selected regiment when you spawn at the base spawns.

8) Yes, this is part of our released concept art of the hud.

9) We are against blocking (you’re using a rifle, not a shield) as it doesnt make sense with such a slim object. We’d like to add a timing based parry however (which is the best you really can do with a rifle).

10) NCO’s can already point by left clicking. They can also relay orders via VoIP. :)

11) We’ve decided not to add this as we do not want modern army movements but 1860’s ones.

12) Flags had a colour guard. No weapons needed :)

- Trusty

[Tyler28256]

Hey!

Thanks for the list. :)

I’m away at the moment so can’t give you a detailed reply currently.

I’ll just list give a few pointers for now.

1) an officer will not know the exact strength of his own regiment mid-combat not other regiments within the army mid-combat.
We had plain numbers back in the early alpha days. Players would use them as a check up on whether or not they hit anything. Also, we’ve been scaling available tickets based on player population on a server for a year or so now - showing actual numbers will mean you’ll see such ticket numbers as 45,47 vs 28,19 tickets.

2) it is quite possible that the longer reload in itself is enough - the morale penalty alone wasn’t enough when we introduced it (majority of all players kept kneeling throughout entire matches) which is why the longer reload penalty was introduced as well.

3) I believe there is a skirmish order available currently for the officers, you’re right though a graphical marker is something we’d like to add to it.

4) Just as the overall team morale/tickets is based on the server population as is the morale loss (which is why it is a percentage). You’d run into sometimes seeing you cost 5 morale and other times 14,67 morale when dying out of line both times.

5) This is roughly the idea for generals.

6) Agrre, HUD is in development as the rest of the game. :)

7) You already spawn in waves (groups) as well as only with your selected regiment when you spawn at the base spawns.

8) Yes, this is part of our released concept art of the hud.

9) We are against blocking (you’re using a rifle, not a shield) as it doesnt make sense with such a slim object. We’d like to add a timing based parry however (which is the best you really can do with a rifle).

10) NCO’s can already point by left clicking. They can also relay orders via VoIP. :)

11) We’ve decided not to add this as we do not want modern army movements but 1860’s ones.

12) Flags had a colour guard. No weapons needed :)

- Trusty

One thing I'd like to suggest is allowing the crouching in formation without penalties since it was a common thing that was used during the war. A good example is on the new map at anderson's attack the whole point of the wall is made useless if we cant crouch behind it for cover. Those in defense would find anything to protect their line, and not just stand up like idiots with perfect cover right in front of them that is in crouching height. I mean to balance this you can make it so if a certain am amount of people are right next to each other and crouching then it counts as in formation (for example 10). It makes it easier to fight crouched behind the short stone wall instead of having everyone stand up and blob together behind the big log pile or giant rocks on anderson's attack.

[TrustyJam]

People would use formation crouching to a much too huge degree before kneeling penalties were in place. :)

- Trusty

[Rbater]

I have a suggestion that is middle ground for point 1. Instead of seeing both team's tickets, you'd see only your team's tickets with the morale of the enemy team. That way players would NOT be able use them as a check up on whether or not they hit anything, but they would be able to see how much manpower is available/left to expend.

[Redleader]

Well, it could be no one is gonna read this but I spent the time to write it all out so here goes...

1. Displayed Team tickets Along with Morale Level: The game needs to de-mystify the ticket system and make it clear to players (including officers) what the actual ticket count is besides the morale level. While displaying tickets is somewhat “gamey” the number is critical as it represents actual manpower available which officers would have known in real life. If you see your number dropping rapidly outside of a line battle, you know you have stragglers ramboing. This has an effect on the orders officers might give to preserve lives/tickets. Maybe that glorious charge really isn’t worth it.

2. Crouching in Formation should not count as “Skirmishing”: Currently, skirmish mode counts for a -3 ticket loss. Skirmishing is defined by crouching or being a certain distance away from other players when fighting. In my opinion, crouching should not count for a -3 ticket loss because it was legitimate tactic used by commanders in the war. Penalizing players for crouching is pointless and frustrating and has caused some units to simply discourage crouching in any situation which is unfortunate. This means a “good” team should never crouch because every soldier that dies counts as a loss of three men, which makes no sense. Crouching still causes slower reloads which I believe is a fair deterrent to encourage standing in lines in most cases.

3. Officers Can order Loose Skirmish line: Secondly, officers should be able to order a skirmish line if desired, allowing players to be more spread out. If players adhere to this formation as ordered, deaths should count as “in formation” (1 ticket). Loose skirmish lines were used to cover flanks and certain angles where an entire line formation would be impractical or a waste of manpower. Line battles would not become obsolete. Line formations still have inherent advantages: massed volleys against a smaller number of targets, unit cohesion and mobility, and creates the infantry mass needed for successful melee defense and offense. If a commander orders a solid battle line and a player is close by but still not in the line, that should be considered skirmishing (-3 tickets)

4. Death displays actual ticket loss, not % of morale loss reduction: Again, this would help to clarify the ticket loss for players so they understand the impact of their deaths to the team. The current text (morale loss reduced by 0/40/80 %) is confusing and meaningless to newer players. This will also help to reduce ramboing as players will see that their three kills don’t make up for a loss of 5 tickets. Additional text would be useful to direct players to understand why their death counted the way it did.

5. Battlefield Map: This is a big one. Showing player’s location and relative location of friendly formations would be extremely useful (perhaps some limited information on enemy formations which are engaged or spotted). Admittedly, this is a not a totally realistic feature for a "simulator", but it would improve gameplay dramatically and give players and commanders an understanding of the lines of battle and where reinforcement units need to be directed to plug gaps. A map would make up for the lack of battlefield communications (runners) which actual commanders would have had access to. Ideally, commanders could even draw arrows or place markers on the map to help coordinate movements of troops.

6. Better HUD Elements: As an overall quality of life improvement, a HUD updated is needed to show friendly units, officers, and particularly to differentiate between different regiments. Currently, the HUD shows minimal information to help the player determine where they need to be, particularly for newer players. Players often hit the HUD button after respawning and run without coordination towards the nearest icon or the capture point, getting mixed up with other regiments and generally creating a confusing battlefield. While the fog of war definitely plays a part in WoR, I think the current mechanic is just frustrating.

7. Group spawning at the reinforcement point: I believe it would help the flow of the game if respawns at the map entry reinforcement point come in groups. How this would work is that respawns would have to wait until a sufficient group could spawn in at the same time, or if a sufficient number of players were already present at the reinforcement point. This would help prevent individual players from running haphazardly across the battlefield to rejoin friendly regiments (many of these players get lost and die out of formation harming the ticket count). There could be a maximum wait time (such as 30-40 seconds) so that players do not need to wait for ages to respawn. Additionally, it could allow NCOs / officers to more easily keep order and direct the movement of respawning groups of players. Reinforcement units would march to the frontline as a group instead of streaming in one at a time unrealistically.

8. Team Army Organization Menu by player, Showing Regiment, Company, and Roles : I think that a menu is critical to replace the regiment selection screen (and available by hotkey in-game) so that the army organization is absolutely clear to players – particularly casual players and officers (and generals if they ever implement it). I want a menu showing regiments, with available slots and roles clearly shown, and player names next to them. No more days of regiments going into battle without officers, or flagbearers, or NCOs. It should be clear up front before anyone goes into battle if any critical roles are not filled. For a quick reference, I’m talking about something akin to Squad, Post Scriptum, or similar games where the team organization is clear and distinct, and the roles of each player can be easily referenced on a hotkey menu. This will also future-proof the game in the event that Regiments are further split into multiple companies (which I think would be a good idea).

9. Melee block key: I have seen that this is already in the roadmap, but I think it deserves mention –melee right now is overpowered and pretty lacking in back-and-forth. The ability to [attempt] to block an attack would really improve the experience. Melee hitboxes also need to be reduced somewhat as you had strike an opponent from a bit too far away IMO.

10. NCO’s can give some limited directions and commands (besides verbal): This would assist in carrying out orders, particularly when the officer is absent or not doing anything. The ability to point would be great, and NCOs should also have binoculars. If the nearby officer dies, the NCO should be able to instruct formations using the key commands.

11. Moving while crouched: This would be a useful quality of life improvement that would coincide with #2. This would again improve realism and reduce the frustration of having to stand up to move to a position a few feet away to crouch in cover.

12. Flag bearer can engage in melee combat: This would be useful so the flag isn’t so vulnerable in melee combat. Even better, give the flag bearer a sword or pistol so they aren’t so useless. Many flag bearers were NCOs, not just random grunts.

First of all, thanks for the well described input and the thoughts put into them.

1. I get your point that for 'new players' the whole 'morale system' isn't very transparent, while a ticketsystem is pretty straightforward. However the morale system is intertwined with the formation system. This game has been trying hard not to be BF or CoD in a civil war setting.
And yes having the 'ticket system' would be simple to know who exactly will win/lose and approx. when (while both 'breaking' might not mean much)

2. The whole 'to crouch or not to crouch' used to be a hot topic here, many history buffs here felt that crouching should not be a thing and the road to 'buff' standing up has been chosen. (back in those days even the wooden fence where very sturdy, no they give ample protection).

3. What would be the difference between a normal and an ordered skirmish line ?

4. Maybe just adding some text to the 'death screen' explaining the morale loss would be nice (but I still suggest we call it morale just a bit more …. worked out)On maps with low player population the multiplier also kicks in.

5. If a 'general' on the field would be able to see that battlemap I would agree, enemy lines should be spotted by friendly officers/nco's or scouts (it's their job).
Fog of war is important, cause it allows strategy and flanking to pay off.

6. Officers can drop 'lines' and Nco's show up as markers, but I agree some just head for 'cap point' and might blind run into a enemy line.
That's why grouping up is important unless you already now we are defending a point and need help immediately.

7. Nice idea to think about on 'group spawning', the 'mobile flag respawn system' needs to be thought over then. In some games an officer can spawn groups faster by activation perks based in his/her performance.

8. Maybe have members of the same regiments in the same colored names, then if you press 'T' it's easy to see which one of the two regiments you're dealing with. And I agree some critical roles sometimes are left out, the 'flag bearer' being very crucial.

9. Block or sidestep … I don't know … as long this doesn't turn into Mordhau :)

10. An NCO marker shows when the NCO has men near him.

11. Again this is in place cause people actually wanted line battles (early war) instead of more 'modern tactics'.

12. The Flag bearer is indeed a 'bullseye', I agree giving him some sort of weapon … but on the other hand if the line gets pierced he should be the first to get the flag into safety. (even if it means running, you know pretty fast when you can hold back an attack .. or not :)) -> Trusty has a point : protect the flag & the officer/nco's.

[Daveallen10]

Hey Trusty, thanks for the quick response. A lot of what you mentioned is very encouraging and its great to hear about the features being worked on still.

A few points:


Hey!
1) an officer will not know the exact strength of his own regiment mid-combat not other regiments within the army mid-combat.
We had plain numbers back in the early alpha days. Players would use them as a check up on whether or not they hit anything. Also, we’ve been scaling available tickets based on player population on a server for a year or so now - showing actual numbers will mean you’ll see such ticket numbers as 45,47 vs 28,19 tickets.


I can understand the logic of this, however, I would note that regardless of whether or not it is displayed - the game is calculating tickets in the background. The core problem is that players (and particularly officers and NCOs) need to be able to gauge more accurately how much strength their forces have versus the enemy at different times in the battle as it affects command decisions (defend vs attack, risk a flanking maneuver, charge, etc...). This is something battlefield commanders probably would have a sense of but players might not. For example: in a Defend the point scenario, the defenders may have 2/3 the manpower available as their opponent - and this is important information for players. The current morale system (engaged, taking losses, breaking) should be seen as a separate meter from actual strength left. I consider this to be a very important issue at the moment.

My proposal:

Since actual number of tickets is variable and may go up or down based on server population - in it place I would suggest some kind of "relative strength" bar/meter to be displayed at the top, along with the existing morale text. That way the actual number of tickets is concealed, but a disparity in force strength (at start of battle and during the battle as losses accumulate) can be easily surmised. I am taking inspiration for this from Medieval 2 Total War in this case:

https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/i212/TheBlackGhost/0/96e5026b-6853-4eb3-bbbc-b8c41000f2d7-original.png?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds (https://beta.photobucket.com/u/TheBlackGhost/p/96e5026b-6853-4eb3-bbbc-b8c41000f2d7)

As a side comment, I think something more interesting could be done with morale to separate it from ticket count. This could create a third win condition besides ticket loss and timer victory - a morale victory. Whereas the tickets (or force strength meter) is stable - a good army may win the day without killing all enemies by winning a morale victory. Morale could be further tied to certain actions on the battlefield (loss of officers, death of units of out formation, complete destruction of a regiment in the field, and seizing the capture point). I also think that certain actions should be able to recover morale for the team.



2) it is quite possible that the longer reload in itself is enough - the morale penalty alone wasn’t enough when we introduced it (majority of all players kept kneeling throughout entire matches) which is why the longer reload penalty was introduced as well.

The current situation is just kind of frustrating. In line battles, the first row would often kneel to allow the second rank to fire over their shoulders. The intention of penalizing crouching is to reduce camping behavior and to encourage line battle formations. I think in terms of carrot and stick design - longer reloading is enough of a stick, and maybe additional "carrots" can be imagined to encourage standing formations (they are more mobile and can pivot and react to the enemy better, for one).


5) This is roughly the idea for generals.
Even if generals do get something like this, I think regular players need something to work with too. Again, I know there are arguments against this because there is fear of the game becoming too much like any other milsim. That said, the minor loss of realism surely is made up for from better gameplay. It could be very simplified to show regiment position from group formations, flag position, as well as individual soldiers on your team, and maybe spotted enemies which fade quickly over time. Maybe enemies wouldn't show up at all, to keep the "fog of war" up. However, just being able to know where you are on the map in relation to the terrain / your allies would be a huge improvement to the game. In particular- knowing where the flag is that you are spawning at! It would probably make it more accessible to new players.

https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/i212/TheBlackGhost/0/c2ea9878-9c4a-485c-8afb-12a5465e1126-original.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds (https://beta.photobucket.com/u/TheBlackGhost/p/c2ea9878-9c4a-485c-8afb-12a5465e1126)


7) You already spawn in waves (groups) as well as only with your selected regiment when you spawn at the base spawns.
I guess I didn't realize that, or maybe the minimum group size for spawning is not that large.


9) We are against blocking (you’re using a rifle, not a shield) as it doesnt make sense with such a slim object. We’d like to add a timing based parry however (which is the best you really can do with a rifle).

Even better!


11) We’ve decided not to add this as we do not want modern army movements but 1860’s ones.
I didn't realize moving while crouched was a 20th century invention...

Jokes aside, I think this goes back to the issues with penalizing crouching. However, I think that making crouch walking very slow and deliberate should eliminate any issue here. Again, its just one of the nitpicks. E.g. "I wish I could move over a few feet to that fence post without having to stand up and expose myself to enemy fire" but if you want to move fifty feet you are gonna move like a turtle to get their so better stand up...



12) Flags had a colour guard. No weapons needed :)
- Trusty
True, but I think practically, it is very boring for the player because they can't do much of anything while holding the flag. The flagbearer was rarely one person in real life, it was often a small group that took turns carrying. It was prestigious - but in WoR it is kind of a burden to take on. Nobody wants to take the flag and not be able to do anything meaningful besides hide behind trees or other soldiers the whole match. Often the flagbearer in the game is the last one left in a regiment that is being attacked and just having a weapon would do wonders for surviving that last Confederate/Yankee attacked. I think in real life if the color bearer had to fight, they would do so.

Alternatively, give them a bugle or something so they can at least do something useful in support of the regiment.

[Redleader]

Alternatively, give them a bugle or something so they can at least do something useful in support of the regiment.

A bugle as some sort of morale booster could be nice --> ' musicians ' haven't appeared on the radar just yet, guess everyone is more focused on arty/cav (and some people just play the bugle calls atm)

[Poorlaggedman]

The flag bearer has a use. It's just so critical that he basically has to hide and not show the slightest bravado or he's dead and the spawn queue is cut for ~5-10 seconds usually.

I think it would be a lot better if the flag served a different realistic role. There's a lot of talk about the need for more HUD features, which I generally loathe and think they can be creatively worked around by better hand and sword signals, of which there's currently only one. The flag (and any future musicians) could work into that perceived void of command and control by more closely filling their real role as a beacon to dress to and orders to listen to. I really feel like a flag should serve only a supplemental purpose for a formation's spawn system in that it might reduce the spawn time but the formation would be what acts as a spawn. The flag should be up front where they belong. Presently you'd be an idiot to advance or charge with your flag bearer up front. In real life the flag generally was at or near the front -- a Civil War charge often looked like an inverted V formation advancing with the colors at the apex. It's a shame the flag isn't filling that role and that's why I think it needs to be reworked. Perhaps active flags with active formations could have more to do with capturing objectives faster than with spawning players, only giving a small bonus to the spawn speed of that formation and hopefully making it less of a critical target than it is.

You also have to consider this increasingly complex social setting being created which players are wandering into. What are the chances of a musician, a flag bearer, and an officer all being in sync? All left up to chance the answer is about zero. This is why I feel very strongly about allowing players to voluntarily band together with other players and select their leader in doing so (see the video in my signature and the forum thread in its description), further empowering and promoting him with every new player, and allowing that leader to choose / fire musicians or NCOs to his liking throughout the round. In a voluntary setting as such you could even then submit to further allowances for your officers and NCOs. An officer or NCO could grab and pull a private who's not listening to orders or grab and pull one to fill a hole or take the flag from an AFK or disobedient player and give it to another. The players themselves are free to leave the organization if they'd like and join another or attempt to start their own if they feel strongly otherwise.

I think kneeling is wayyyy over utilized in all facets presently even when cover is present. The delay in outgoing firepower does not usually make up for the reduction in casualties and I think it's never worth it when standing in the open. However I do strongly think the game should allow for moving crouched and even prone because the fact is that these things actually happened. WoR should just do what other games don't and be very accurate in the way they portray it.

Proning in particular is just insanely overpowered and poorly modeled in most or all video games. Being prone is not a pleasant thing for a soldier who is fighting, certainly not in the Civil War. You get cover and that's great but that's it.People come with really skewed opinions on how it is to fire a weapon and operate in the prone position. I can speak from experience and have scars on both my elbows from crawling that demonstrate how much it frankly sucks ass. Unlike at the firing range after church, you don't get a lot of leeway into where you're laying and crawling. It's also exhausting. Holding a rifle or musket up at the ready on your elbows will wear your arms out in a few minutes. There is no good resting position in this situation. You either lay your weapon in the dirt or you hold it up to the expense of your stanima. Why on Earth games insist on portraying the prone position as a restful and leisurely experience when you're literally suspending a heavy object in the air away from your body is beyond me. Reloading would obviously be painstaking and time-consuming with a musket in the prone.

For a Civil War soldier crouching and proning should be progressively more vulnerable to suppression, disorienting, and more painstaking to load. These soldiers were mainly trained to fight standing so the fact that they have to lay down would be a cause for concern under fire. Movements should take more stanima and be more difficult to keep your weapon steady for as long a time when lower. Reinforcements should come slower as well (who wants to run up and form with a unit that's hugging the dirt as opposed to one standing?).

It's going to feel weird being unable to prone when targeted by artillery at range. Like everything else the best way to model it creatively is to look at real life and try to mimic the circumstances so a player would be wise to adopt the same thought-processes of the real combatants. I don't think musicians relieved people of the fear of death, their purpose was in command and control. That's doing the genre justice IMO.

[Redleader]

I think kneeling is wayyyy over utilized in all facets presently even when cover is present. The delay in outgoing firepower does not usually make up for the reduction in casualties and I think it's never worth it when standing in the open. However I do strongly think the game should allow for moving crouched and even prone because the fact is that these things actually happened. WoR should just do what other games don't and be very accurate in the way they portray it.


In most situations this is true, unless we are dealing with a stone wall (the rest is kind of … flimsy).
If the enemy is at a distance and in less cover, crouching for reload will bring benefits even if the reload is slower.

The crouched movement (with some sort of delay, slow movement) could work out (I'm not talking about running ducked, but movement on the knees).
Prone might be stretching it, even if it was used (which I'm definitely not questioning) it would be 'rare' especially in the early stages of the war.

[Daveallen10]

In most situations this is true, unless we are dealing with a stone wall (the rest is kind of … flimsy).
If the enemy is at a distance and in less cover, crouching for reload will bring benefits even if the reload is slower.

The crouched movement (with some sort of delay, slow movement) could work out (I'm not talking about running ducked, but movement on the knees).
Prone might be stretching it, even if it was used (which I'm definitely not questioning) it would be 'rare' especially in the early stages of the war.

Agreed on the previous comments about making crouched and prone fighting and movement more realistic.

I know prone fighting is portayed in Gods and Generals during 1st Manassas. Not sure if that really happened but it seems plausible. Going to the dirt during an artillery bombardment makes a lot of sense though.

[GeorgeCrecy]

I can attest for one, as has been mentioned above, that the prone position was certainly used and perhaps briefly taught. Take a peek at this vid for an example of the process:
https://youtu.be/bcKWZJQ2AWA
It was also used on several occasions by both sides at Antietam, let alone countless other examples throughout the war, in the former case in the Miller's Cornfield and at the Sunken Lane where soldiers went prone either to avoid artillery and musket fire, or to surprise the enemy respectively. So it does have plenty of tactical use, as well as plenty of historical footing, as well as a good amount of cons to it's use.

[Sox]

I can attest for one, as has been mentioned above, that the prone position was certainly used and perhaps briefly taught. Take a peek at this vid for an example of the process:
https://youtu.be/bcKWZJQ2AWA
It was also used on several occasions by both sides at Antietam, let alone countless other examples throughout the war, in the former case in the Miller's Cornfield and at the Sunken Lane where soldiers went prone either to avoid artillery and musket fire, or to surprise the enemy respectively. So it does have plenty of tactical use, as well as plenty of historical footing, as well as a good amount of cons to it's use.

I think an historical game only has to represent what was 'typical'. You can find examples of a lot of things, lying down as you stated, Jacksons troops at Bull Run or the Union troops in front of the wall at Frederickburg, but does that mean those kind of things are actually needed? Going prone would be useful BUT....add in the ability to fire from prone and, because it's just a game, before you know it everyone is doing it all the time. Add prone, but not firing from prone.

[Poorlaggedman]

That's why you'd have to model it to do it justice. So that you're not spawning reinforcements as fast, not reloading as fast, more vulnerable to suppression, and in serious peril in melee. Tinker with those things and it'll get used less than you think. I already am opposed to crouching in nearly all scenarios. Then again I'm usually offensive-minded and to me it's a waste of time and effort to marginalize your firepower so much.



Prone might be stretching it, even if it was used (which I'm definitely not questioning) it would be 'rare' especially in the early stages of the war.When you dig down into the details in reports it was used particularly when regiments were not engaged but were vulnerable to artillery or skirmisher fire. I'm dangerously assuming that Jackson even had his men lay down, as his been painted and portrayed, no less than at first Manassass as he mentioned above. They probably weren't the only units to do so at the battle either.

One local newspaper in my hometown has an article about its action at Gaine's Mill and they hugged the ground in a road behind a fence during a lengthy firefight. I'm very unschooled at the unit-level movements in the early war so I don't have a lot of early war examples. Just as with skirmishing your typical tactical level history lesson won't discuss this leaving you to either dig deeper or imagine such things.

It comes up quite a bit. In some battles it seems that few units aren't hugging the ground at some point. Entire units would also drop to avoid volleys. Not making it up. Dig into the details. You can see how that can be problematic in a firefight if not done in a split-second decision. And certainly would shake your men's confidence waiting on a volley that never comes. I could pull a half dozen or more examples just from a book I'm two chapters into reading on Gettysburg which tells of units proning, fighting prone, or being ordered to duck for cover to avoid a volley, and this is only where the details are given as such.

[Vankovski]

I'll admit that I skipped reading a lot of this but I would like to point out two things:

If you're using crouching correctly, you won't be getting hit at all and thus the -3 penalty is a moot point. Otherwise I believe it is a good gameplay deterrent to organized field crouching. Similarly, if you're skirmishing correctly you shouldn't be seen or getting hit at all, and thus the -3 penalty is a moot point. Otherwise I believe it is a good gameplay deterrent to people mobbing about in 2s and 3s all the time instead of staying in line.

I don't think that gameplay concessions should be made for people who can't figure out that crouching is something you do safely behind a stone wall or the crest of a hill, or for concealment behind fencelines. I don't think gameplay concessions should be made for people who can't figure out that skirmishing means survival first and kills second.

There's a time and place for everything people.

Add the prone position though!

[Lord Drax]

I'll admit that I skipped reading a lot of this but I would like to point out two things:

If you're using crouching correctly, you won't be getting hit at all and thus the -3 penalty is a moot point. Otherwise I believe it is a good gameplay deterrent to organized field crouching. Similarly, if you're skirmishing correctly you shouldn't be seen or getting hit at all, and thus the -3 penalty is a moot point. Otherwise I believe it is a good gameplay deterrent to people mobbing about in 2s and 3s all the time instead of staying in line.

I don't think that gameplay concessions should be made for people who can't figure out that crouching is something you do safely behind a stone wall or the crest of a hill, or for concealment behind fencelines. I don't think gameplay concessions should be made for people who can't figure out that skirmishing means survival first and kills second.

There's a time and place for everything people.

Add the prone position though!

Here here! Wise points from my fellow Texan!

[Oleander]

I'm not sure how I feel about prone positions. I feel like its going to be more of a nuisance than anything. There's a point where you'd have to decide is it worth even having and how far into the realm of reality do you want to go. The teams are still relatively small, even if you fill a 200 man server you're talking no more than 100 men per side, then it could essentially descend into trench warfare. Things like arty could disrupt it, but you're basically counting on one side to be brave enough to attack a position where they can't get a good shot on the enemy which isn't tactically sound.

If it were to be implemented I would say keep it resigned to units that would have most historically used it meaning Sharpshooters or dismounted Cav. That keeps the number of available players that are able to use it to a minimum and gives them a more realistic role as skirmishers.

As for the ticket system, I've never been a fan of either the original ticket counter we had or the new morale system. Nor do I like the End of Round events. I feel like both completely change the way the game is played, the EoR events especially. When we had the old system each side would just sit on their duff and slog away at each other til the tickets ran down enough. The new system did away with a lot of that, but then showed the problems with the maps and made a whole new meta. Now, the attacker has a significant morale advantage over the defender which is completely backwards as far as I'm concerned. The defender should have the morale advantage and the attacker should be at a disadvantage.

There's also the problem of defenders being left to hold untenable positions, such as the middle of an open field with nothing but a pile of rocks. I still believe multiple caps is the best way to break up the current meta and force commanders to be flexible. As it stands, the maps are stale and it becomes attack, reform, attack etc. You never have an opportunity to gain any sort of momentum. You attack until the morale breaks then take the cap, the defenders never get another option. They either have to stand their and take it or lose the round. It just doesn't make any sense when you consider there are other positions available that are far better to hold, not to mention the fact that the maps in some cases are way bigger than the actual areas of contention. That's leaving a huge chunk of gameplay options on the table that can't be used.

[Daveallen10]

I'll admit that I skipped reading a lot of this but I would like to point out two things:

If you're using crouching correctly, you won't be getting hit at all and thus the -3 penalty is a moot point. Otherwise I believe it is a good gameplay deterrent to organized field crouching. Similarly, if you're skirmishing correctly you shouldn't be seen or getting hit at all, and thus the -3 penalty is a moot point. Otherwise I believe it is a good gameplay deterrent to people mobbing about in 2s and 3s all the time instead of staying in line.

I don't think that gameplay concessions should be made for people who can't figure out that crouching is something you do safely behind a stone wall or the crest of a hill, or for concealment behind fencelines. I don't think gameplay concessions should be made for people who can't figure out that skirmishing means survival first and kills second.

There's a time and place for everything people.

Add the prone position though!

But the original issue remains that you need to kill three enemies for every death while crouched just to break even. Not all cover is stone walls. Should you only crouch behind walls and rocks but not fences?

Scenarios should be balanced by tickets not crounching mechanics. If you have a scenario where one team has better cover, the other team should have more soldiers and the assumption should be that crouching and cover will reduce losses

[Vankovski]

But the original issue remains that you need to kill three enemies for every death while crouched just to break even. Not all cover is stone walls. Should you only crouch behind walls and rocks but not fences?

Breaking even on tickets isn't really the point of skirmishing though. We have many different objectives when deployed as skirmishers, but survival is our number one priority and risk management is our number one asset. We are always aware that in order to accomplish our objectives, we are going to have to spend a certain amount of tickets, much of our practice goes into minimizing ticket loss. We also try not to take shots at the crouch because it's faster to compensate for the sway while standing. If you're undetected using a split-rail fence for concealment is just as good as having cover. You maintain first shot advantage and can also disengage at will.

[LaBelle]

@trusty - It's my belief that we're at a stage in game play where people recognize how slow crouched reloading is, and would rather stand in a straight up fight to make sure they're firing faster than the enemy. Thus, the only time crouching would be beneficial would be if you were behind low cover, which would be historically accurate. So what you said about the "reloading debuff should be enough" is something I am 100% behind.

[COL. Patrick R Cleburne]

People would use formation crouching to a much too huge degree before kneeling penalties were in place. :)

- Trusty

then why would units have the front rank kneeling

[COL. Patrick R Cleburne]

3. What would be the difference between a normal and an ordered skirmish line ?

answer. The intervals at witch the men/dots are spaced as well as them being staggered

The treatise, New American Tactics, by General John Watts de Peyster advocated making the skirmish line the new line of battle, a revolutionary idea at the time.[12] During the American Civil War, it was common for cavalrymen to dismount and form a skirmish line to delay enemy troops advancing towards an objective (for example, the actions of the Union cavalrymen led by Brig. General John Buford on the first day of the Battle of Gettysburg). Skirmish lines were also used to harass enemy probing missions, hampering the other force from gaining an effective intelligence picture by engaging their scouts and likewise forcing them to deploy.[13]

[COL. Patrick R Cleburne]

\11182