Resting muskets on fence rails & interaction

[dogofspades]

Wanted to know what the community thought about this. The implementation would allow a soldier to "steady" or reduce the in game sway while aiming by using an interaction key when close to a rail fence. This also could be tied to a defensive "formation buff". Chime in :)!

[Poorlaggedman]

100%. It seems to be one of the main benefits of fences in real life was steadying muskets off them. Still need some trembling at the higher levels of suppression though as opposed to natural sway.

I'm still not completely happy with the penetration on fences or trees and even bushes. It could be partly my imagination. Especially for upright rails and the edges of trees it seems to be lacking. Too many sure hits become a miss even discounting penetration of the object itself. I could swear recently a bush was blocking loads of enemy bullets on Pry House and a few of the trees reached out and grabbed a lot of hits as well 11168

[Mark L. E. E. Smith]

Makes sense, promotes the use of cover too.

[dogofspades]

Indeed PLM, couldn't be totally stagnant that would be way to powerful. I was thinking more on this, and that maybe the "buff" could come into play if a certain number of players were in a defensible area (6 -10), Require an NCO or Officer or combination of both to activate within the area, and could be marked on the field with an icon that could be viewed when hitting "T", letting players know it is a "defensible area", and like Mark said it promotes the use of cover and staying close as a unit to gain these advantages.

I also think projectile penetration needs to be fine tuned as I have been behind what seemed at the time was a "god mode" bush, but on the other hand - I've been domed standing behind a two foot thick tree.....:confused:

[Vankovski]

Weapons should simply passively rest on available platforms at the correct height. 100% believe it should be implemented. Existing weapon MOA should be enough that the elimination of sway isn't totally overpowered. Would switch up the meta a little bit as previously indefensible fence-lines , due to recently added penetration, become incredibly valuable as impromptu rifle pits. Would also add another factor to the decision between taking cover on a fenceline vs a rock formation.

[dogofspades]

Vankovski very good insight sir! I can definitely see this coming into play with rock formations, in addition to other surfaces like windows, cannons etc. Getting a bit more granular, depending on the " defensible area" either fence, rocks or other - a limit could be placed on the number of players that could "occupy" it to gain its advantage and not overpower any one of these areas on the map. I have been in some pretty solid lines on fences but have also seen fence lines get shredded due to penetration so I'm up in the air,but maybe as an additional factor the rock's could offer extra protection from artillery shells and artillery suppression during bombardments.

[Poorlaggedman]

I don't think anyone needs more encouragement to use a fenceline as cover or for any buff. It's already what the gameplay revolves around too much at times. Part of this is just gamers built-in belief that any morsel of cover they can find is needed and part of it is a genuinely serious reduced likelhood of being shot behind one. You would expect some of this to exist realistically but you don't see these references to Civil War combat revolving around fences. Fences are thrown down as obstacles or stacked up as barricades at most. They weren't a whole lot of help just sitting there as a boundary marker in some farmer's field as they are everywhere in WoR's maps. Artillery and cavalry needed them down for maneuver and infantry threw them down in their path of march. Some of the ballistics in the game and penetration values previously made fences extremely valuable and in my opinion more should be done where there's a consistent feeling of "I shouldn't even take this shot because he's behind a fence post."

Sure if a round hits a fence rail square on it might be stopped but there's a huge variety of fences you'd find on a battlefield like Antietam of various qualities than the standard setups the national park service reproduces today. Don't be deceived at what an 1862 fence is by the photo of the sturdy 6-rail fence lining the Hagerstown Road with all the Confederate dead behind it either. That was a Turnpike fence and was probably the sturdiest around.

Meanwhile game formations dissolve and crowd around fences, rocks, or all behind a single tree. That's what needs to be buffed, alignment should have some purpose and the players need to see the results not the end-game screen to change that.

https://www.warofrightsforum.com/showthread.php?6093-Some-game-environment-concerns-Video

[Vankovski]

Getting a bit more granular, depending on the " defensible area" either fence, rocks or other - a limit could be placed on the number of players that could "occupy" it to gain its advantage and not overpower any one of these areas on the map.

I believe that the geometry of an unbroken fenceline vs the geometry of broken up rocks already puts a hard limit on how many players can be occupying a position that would offer a place to rest their rifles. You'll always be able to fit more rifles pointing in the same direction on the fenceline. Nothing really needs to be coded in that respect because it is physical logic.

[Vankovski]

I found this great video from the American Battlefield trust about the importance of fences in American Civil War tactics. It uses very many examples from different stages of the war.

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/videos/battlefield-fences-civil-war

As a brief overview, the video describes four major tactical purposes of fencelines in the American Civil War:

1. Concealment: Breaking the enemy line of sight
2. Cover: Breaking the enemy field of fire. (Oftentimes these first two were the same thing)
3. Use as obstacles: Slows the momentum of an attacking enemy, they have to get past the fence to assault the infantry, a major hurdle.
4. Command and Control: Because the Civil War was fought by massive, linear formations, a long fence line made for an easy way for a regiment to quickly switch from a marching column to a line of battle.

It seems like the tactics being utilized in game accurately reflect the tactics of the day. Very interesting!

[Oleander]

If you look at the battlefield maps of the battle, the bulk of Confederate defenses revolved around fence lines.

[Gamble]

+1 for resting your weapon

[dogofspades]

+1 for resting your weapon

+1 what?

[Poorlaggedman]

Yeah. It's just like the real Civil War. Except we can't throw the fences down like real combatants can and there's 3 different models of farmer fence in the game representing a plethora of fences both ultra sturdy (for driving cattle by) and ultra filmsy farmer boundary fences.



It seems like the tactics being utilized in game accurately reflect the tactics of the day. Very interesting!

11181


I'd like to see a battle report anywhere of any unit ever advancing in column up a worm fence. Or any fence for that matter. Or a formation that completely dissolves and hugs to a fence for protection shooting over each other's shoulders because they couldn't be made to stay in formation. That doesn't match any reality anywhere in the Civil War. You get the sense that wooden fences were far more of an obstacle than anything else. I'm glad the game has increased the penetration of fences and buildings beyond where they used to be.

The Trust video is cringe-worthy in it's scant details on the covers these fences provide, leaving the audience to imagine, unlike the real combatants who had a pretty good idea. I remember it came out within a few days of when I did my video slamming fences in this game as effectively trenches. Historians will be quick to tell you that, though there were historically many more fences on the terrain at the time of the battles, a lot of them were torn down during the battle, used for firewood, taken down for maneuver, or specifically deconstructed and piled up as a barricade (because just a fence is terrible protection). When I was a little kid we used fences for protection playing. You wouldn't like your chances standing behind one being shot at. Even if it stops a bullet the fence will start splintering apart and you've got all the more junk flying around at you.

Longstreet's troops didn't stop on the Emmitsburg Road at Gettysburg and start exchanging volleys with the Union defenders. Rufus Dawes didn't stay at the roadside fence he was at "and get slaughtered" by Confederates at the Railroad Cut, he charged the railroad cut. The Confederates at the Sunken Road at Antietam did not post up behind a model worm fence and use the fence for cover, they tore the fence apart and stacked the rails up.

Steadying your weapon is the main functional defensive advantage of using a fence other than ones of exceptional quality.

The Hagerstown Road fence is a high quality fence because it's a turnpike. That's why it's still standing after the battle. Not all fences were like that. https://www.loc.gov/item/2018666239/

[dogofspades]

First off, PLM definitely knows his fences - kudos! Your description's are on point! I agree with you that lots of players use cover and that an additional buffer may not work or even be necessary as I would not want the game turning to a "take cover" mentality. I also agree that "formations dissolve and crowd around fences, rocks, or all behind a single tree" as I've been in both situations before. To Vankovski's point, I think the strongest "tactical purpose" here is (4) Command and Control. Thank you for posting the video! We all know how frustrating it is when units do not work together in game, but to some degree the fences (with proper strategy) promote unit organization and cohesiveness - a complaint from many that we here often is lacking during play. To Oleander's point, the devs are being as meticulous as possible with the modeling of maps as close to form of the actual battlefield and no doubt there will be some "errors" and disagreement's but the CSA line was in fact heavily situated, behind dozens of these fences all across the battlefield. Lovin all the ideas & debate gents!

[Gamble]

+1 what?
No native speaker here, I am sorry if this was unclear. I do support the idea of resting your weapon on a fence, wall etc. To steady your aim.

[Oleander]

The Trust video is cringe-worthy in it's scant details on the covers these fences provide, leaving the audience to imagine, unlike the real combatants who had a pretty good idea. ]

:rolleyes: I don't know why I expected any different from you.

[dogofspades]

No worries Gamble I was just unsure if you were making reference to another part of the post, thank you for joining in the discussion!

[Poorlaggedman]

:rolleyes: I don't know why I expected any different from you.
It's one of the worst they've done because fence use in battle is one of the top misconceptions of visitors to battlefields. Right behind the appearance of forested terrain being generally much clearer than today and the accuracy of the weapons.

Clearly this has spilled over even into this game at some small level. The most obvious example is the Sunken Lane bearing a less than historical appearance to battle conditions since the units clearly report tearing down fences and building a barricade of rails. In that case there's the advantage of post-battle pictures. The barricade the Confederates built in the post-battle pictures is surely not to the level it was at the time they fought there after being fought over and trampled down, the main advantage is the road itself not the rails though. Also notice the bodies laying in the road show you that the road was barely more than one body length across at its base. It explains more why flanking it was so bad for the defenders because they were packed in there like sardines unlike in WoR where you can fan over a dozen players across the width of the sunken lane to form a front.


https://www.loc.gov/item/2018671456/
https://www.loc.gov/item/2018666240/
https://www.loc.gov/item/2018671463/

TBH the Sunken Lane generally confused me greatly when I was last there a little over a year ago comparing it to the WoR sunken lane

You can't get the entire battlefield fence conditions down totally accurate but I think it can be done better than it is. There's no reason to just go with the exact setup a present day tourist sees with picturesque condition fences on a battlefield.

[Gamble]

Fences are indestructible, which I find quite problematic. While split rail fences may be quite sturdy, a lot of those were constructed without the use of nails. I could imagine that even heavy musketry fire was enough to move the logs of such fences. If simple minie balls are enough to cut down an oak tree (Bloody Angle) over some hours of fighting, some fence logs probably broke earlier or just were pushed down. I don't know how this could be fixed, though. Making them affected by a physic simulation would be very taxing for hardware, changing the models to quickly madeshift breastworks could even emphasize the role of those fences even more (on the other hand it could also add historical accuracy to the maps, like the sunken lane as PLM suggested).

[Balwur]

I am looking up to for this to be added

[Sox]

Fences are indestructible, which I find quite problematic.

You'd find it far more problematic if they made them destructable.......when 150 (and possibly 200 PLUS artillery) players are slamming shots into them, splinters all over, and you've got an FPS of 1.

[Poorlaggedman]

I'd very much like to see various levels of simulated usage to the maps and areas. In my opinion the existing default Antietam map resembles a rather pristine picture of the battlefield for one to fight on, especially since artillery is already placed probably necessitating the downing of some swaths of fencing. It might not be something the engine can handle but perhaps other creative means could be had to alter the environment or at least have the opportunity for altered states of the map. Honestly the worm fences are so fragile in real life you're liable to knock one apart just by jumping over it yet they stand tall and proud during the whole battle in game through the various scenarios. With the cornfield it's obviously a real shame it can't be simulated in some manner. I didn't expect game engines would neglect destruction as badly as they have over the last couple decades since Red Faction came out with destructible terrain.

[Sox]

It's simple: Any Dev worth his salt has to make gameplay a No' 1 priority, It's all well and good to imagine corn stalks falling, shells blowing holes in the ground etc' but can the engine handle it, in conjunction with so many players? over a hundred players bullets cutting down corn would be stress that an engine does not need. Same with resting a gun on a fence, it's a pointless addition that's just not needed.

[Poorlaggedman]

My point is that in the industry looks get prioritized while the functionality doesn't. The engine surely can't handle such a thing because it wasn't designed to however many years ago it was conceived. Hence why it's 2019 and we have beautiful graphics and yet wooden fences that are made of concrete and we can't do anything about it. Obviously it can't be done, but that's no reason not to have versions of maps that are more battle-scarred than pristine. Rarely in human history has a cornfield been as violated as Miller's.

[LaBelle]

Maybe we can get map variants later on down the line, such as "Miller's Cornfield: Late Day" where the corn has been trampled, the ground is turned up, etc.