Author Topic: A concern on Rifle accuracy changing game play  (Read 32878 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TheBoberton

  • Knight of Blueberry
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 994
  • I don't want no pardon for anything I done
    • View Profile
    • Thomas' Steam Profile
  • Side: Confederacy
Re: A concern on Rifle accuracy changing game play
« Reply #45 on: January 06, 2014, 12:26:08 pm »
Um.. the British in the Crimea were fighting Russians armed predominately with flintlocks.

Offline Duuring

  • Duuring
  • ***
  • Posts: 12357
  • Free at last
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: A concern on Rifle accuracy changing game play
« Reply #46 on: January 06, 2014, 04:08:09 pm »
The British, the Turks and the Russians still used vast formations and battle lines. The French were modernizing and used more light-infantry tactics, and were actually rather shocked when they saw their allies marching into battle in line.

Offline Skyz

  • Second Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 736
  • The Hour Kills the Patient
    • View Profile
  • Side: Union
Re: A concern on Rifle accuracy changing game play
« Reply #47 on: January 06, 2014, 06:20:13 pm »
I had no idea formations and the way people fought affected rifle accuracy.

Offline Duuring

  • Duuring
  • ***
  • Posts: 12357
  • Free at last
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: A concern on Rifle accuracy changing game play
« Reply #48 on: January 06, 2014, 06:33:58 pm »
If you have nothing to contribute to the subject, then don't bother posting anyway.

Offline Matthew

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 1025
  • ლ(◕◡◕ლ) oly gaym y u heff 2 b med
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Matthew ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ
  • Side: Neutral
Re: A concern on Rifle accuracy changing game play
« Reply #49 on: January 06, 2014, 06:55:13 pm »
I had no idea formations and the way people fought affected rifle accuracy.
Well if you think about it, it does not affect the rifles accuracy but your accuracy with the rifle.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." - Mikhail Bakunin
"Dispassionate, fair, equal"
Oh you wanted a serious response, why didn't you just say so.
b2e98ad6f6eb8508dd6a14cfa704bad7f05f6fb

Offline TheBoberton

  • Knight of Blueberry
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 994
  • I don't want no pardon for anything I done
    • View Profile
    • Thomas' Steam Profile
  • Side: Confederacy
Re: A concern on Rifle accuracy changing game play
« Reply #50 on: January 06, 2014, 07:15:39 pm »
The British, the Turks and the Russians still used vast formations and battle lines. The French were modernizing and used more light-infantry tactics, and were actually rather shocked when they saw their allies marching into battle in line.

Your point?

Offline Duuring

  • Duuring
  • ***
  • Posts: 12357
  • Free at last
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: A concern on Rifle accuracy changing game play
« Reply #51 on: January 07, 2014, 12:08:48 am »
That the fact most Russians had flintlocks has nothing to do with battle strategies in the Crimea. They didn't scout the enemy and adapt their tactics on whether their opponents were rifle or smooth bore-armed.

Offline ClearlyInvsible

  • Donator
  • *
  • Posts: 6492
  • I'm still here. Dunno why.
    • View Profile
  • Nick: ClearlyInvsible
  • Side: Union
Re: A concern on Rifle accuracy changing game play
« Reply #52 on: January 07, 2014, 12:18:21 am »
To be fair Duuring, by that logic all of the Napoleonic Armies should have used Light Infantry tactics.
"No man will make a great leader who wants to do it all himself or get all the credit for doing it."- Andrew Carnegie
“A man who has no conscience, no goodness, does not suffer.” - Khaled Hosseini
Faggots will burn in hell anyway, who cares.

Offline TheBoberton

  • Knight of Blueberry
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 994
  • I don't want no pardon for anything I done
    • View Profile
    • Thomas' Steam Profile
  • Side: Confederacy
Re: A concern on Rifle accuracy changing game play
« Reply #53 on: January 07, 2014, 12:44:54 am »
They didn't have to adapt their tactics. The fact that they had rifles meant that they could fire at ranges exceeding those of the Russian weapons, without having to worry about the enemy returning fire.

Did it influence the strategies used? Of course not, but it did significantly reduce British casualties, and it makes the comparison of the Crimean War to later wars, that involved all sides being armed with modern weapons, completely useless.

Offline GrandMaster

  • First Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 305
    • View Profile
  • Nick: 91st_LCpl_Dougal_MacGregor
  • Side: Confederacy
Re: A concern on Rifle accuracy changing game play
« Reply #54 on: February 12, 2014, 11:44:24 pm »
I think it is simple give the rifles less accuracy whilst standing but greater when crouching, so soldiers exchange mobility for accuracy.

Offline Rallix

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
  • Nick: 00th_Merc_Rallix
  • Side: Confederacy
Re: A concern on Rifle accuracy changing game play
« Reply #55 on: February 14, 2014, 07:35:28 pm »
I'll explain how to have the gameplay you're hoping for, as well as realism.

First: You must consider the real reasons why people used line formations. These were manifold, but summarized by few main reasons.
Line formations are easier to manage large units of men with. Instead of them wondering what to do or where to go, they simply retain their position relative to everyone else, and fire on orders.

Skirmish lines require more initiative, and thus more training and discipline to maintain effectiveness, as men must actively seek cover, and fire or reload at will, and retreat or advance at will. A skirmish unit is easy to lose track of from the commander's viewpoint, so it is limited in its size by what can be micromanaged, or how well the skirmishers understand what they must do.

Lines offer strength in numbers, and are a force equaled in sheer strength, only by a line of the same size.
The line can be easily managed by officers, and offers safety in a melee against anyone who would come for you while you're reloading.
The fact that having as many friends as possible within weapons reach of you in a melee, is a good thing, is a very easy concept to understand.

The purpose of a line is essentially the ability to deliver an effective mass melee charge, to force your enemy to retreat. If battles were decided entirely by who kills the most of the other guy from a distance, you'd get something resembling modern combat, which involves cover, suppression, and firepower as key elements on the tactical level. This is what light infantry did even in the Napoleonic wars.

Secondly: The reason for the above being the case is a question of the effectiveness of ranged weapons.
Why in the hell were massed line formations still in use after 1850 if the rifle was as accurate then as it is now?
It is because the rate of fire was substantially different. It takes 20-30 seconds for a soldier to go from shot to shot. No, I'm not kidding, it's a slow and tedious process.

Open cartridge pouch, grab cartridge, open cartridge, place powder and bullet in barrel, remove ramrod, ram cartridge, replace ramrod, half cock lock, grab percussion cap, place cap on nipple, cock lock, aim/fire.

Because this took so damn long, it made bayonet charges possible. Why? Because any man can run a hundred meters/yards in the time it takes to reload.
For about every 100 meters of ground your enemy crosses, you can fire once, or twice if he's not moving fast and you're reloading fast.
This means that depending on the openness of the terrain, an entire line could move into a melee against an enemy as they reload.

In addition, shot does not mean dead. Simply because you've been shot, you do not die. A person dies near instantly if hit in the brain, bleeds out in seconds to a minute if a heart/lung/major blood vessel is hit, and it takes several minutes or even hours to bleed out if hit in a nonvital area.

I suggest that the game reflect these things, where reload speed is incredibly important tactically, and where wound damage is heavily locationally based. In this way, you can ensure that the game is both realistic, and that melee combat is feasible.

The purpose of a line formation is to keep your men organized until or if possible during a melee fight, not to absorb or be effective in preventing damage from ranged fire. That's all it's ever been for. Formations are stronger in a melee than infantry out of formation.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2014, 07:40:30 pm by Rallix »
Indeed.

Offline beefprophet

  • Donator
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: A concern on Rifle accuracy changing game play
« Reply #56 on: February 14, 2014, 09:08:00 pm »
Honestly, a good way to reduce the musket accuracy is simply to NOT tell the person if they've hit someone, via hit marker or by showing the kills ala Napoleonic Wars. That way, people have to actually fire through smoke and fire with some degree of inaccuracy, rather than firing in a certain direction until the hit marker says that they're hitting people.

Offline Duuring

  • Duuring
  • ***
  • Posts: 12357
  • Free at last
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: A concern on Rifle accuracy changing game play
« Reply #57 on: February 14, 2014, 11:15:03 pm »
Quote
Why in the hell were massed line formations still in use after 1850 if the rifle was as accurate then as it is now?

Conservative military. The reason the USA had such a fast evolution of tactics was because their army was 99% civilian.

Offline Rallix

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
  • Nick: 00th_Merc_Rallix
  • Side: Confederacy
Re: A concern on Rifle accuracy changing game play
« Reply #58 on: February 15, 2014, 04:32:52 am »
Quote
Why in the hell were massed line formations still in use after 1850 if the rifle was as accurate then as it is now?
Conservative military. The reason the USA had such a fast evolution of tactics was because their army was 99% civilian.
I am unconvinced that this is the only reasoning. This seems quite the oversimplification.
Surely commanders would have no difficult time seeing that their men were being torn to pieces in lines. The high casualty rates speak of this.

But as I said, I believe that the formations were viewed as a necessary evil to prevent tactical stalemate, as happened later in the first world war.

The push of bayonet formations was to end battles, not to fight from a distance. You close with bayonet when you believe you have the advantage, not as a matter of course. In fact, it is precisely a misuse of the charge that resulted in the failure of picket's charge at Gettysburg.
They simply did not have the advantage of numbers or positioning to justify a charge.

In short, my idea is that line formations should be used by large units to finish off an enemy that they have the advantage against.
The advantage is gained either before the battle(strategic), or during the skirmishing.
Indeed.

Offline Wismar

  • Donator
  • *
  • Posts: 3838
  • Med Gud o' Sveas allmoge för Konung och Fosterland
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Radical
  • Side: Confederacy
Re: A concern on Rifle accuracy changing game play
« Reply #59 on: February 15, 2014, 05:46:38 pm »
+1 to Rallix