As well as in the heat of battle especially with smoke soldiers could not directly point out individuals and could often barely make out the enemy line. This was one of the causes of so many flag bearers dying.
I'm really tired of people complaining about melee. That's the one thing I hate about NW now, is the stupid "bum rush into melee own pwn pwn." There's no real essence of line battles in NW since regiments shoot one volley, if that, then Y0L0 charge as the kids and idiots call it across a field the length of a football field.
You think that is going to be a perfect scenario where its a huge flat map and multiple lines are firing on eachother from large distances but it wont be. The maps will be somewhat hilly and you probably wont be able to see your enemy from one side of the map to the other so It's just going to be people sitting on hills because the moment they expose themselves they will get sniped by a rifle
You think that is going to be a perfect scenario where its a huge flat map and multiple lines are firing on eachother from large distances but it wont be. The maps will be somewhat hilly and you probably wont be able to see your enemy from one side of the map to the other so It's just going to be people sitting on hills because the moment they expose themselves they will get sniped by a rifle
You realize maps are going to be huge right? Like 5 times the size of NW maps.
It doesn't matter if a map is huge, Because you won't be able to see someone over a hill unless you are in close proximity. Around the range it is in NWYou think that is going to be a perfect scenario where its a huge flat map and multiple lines are firing on eachother from large distances but it wont be. The maps will be somewhat hilly and you probably wont be able to see your enemy from one side of the map to the other so It's just going to be people sitting on hills because the moment they expose themselves they will get sniped by a rifle
You realize maps are going to be huge right? Like 5 times the size of NW maps.
Developer Blog 2 - Regiment/Clan System
So last week we talked about our plans for supporting huge numbers of players, today we have gone for something a little bit different!
A lot of people have been asking us about how we plan on supporting community made clans and regiments in-game. We have already had a lot of thought on this as our community is very important to us, especially as Battle Cry of Freedom is a competitive multiplayer game.(https://www.fsegames.eu/images/devblog2.jpg)
So our planned system will work something like this:
You can freely create clans for our game, these groups are called “Regiments”. These Regiments will be groups of players much like you see in our previous title Napoleonic Wars, however we aim to support these groups as much as possible in-game, and so please read on to get a picture of what we are planning.
Clan/Regiment page
The clan/regiment page is like an advanced version of a steam group. Clans can post news and announce events there. It is possible to easily browse the clan’s players, to take a look at their ranks and stats (including activity). The regiment page could also be used to communicate with each other. It has a small built in chat which saves the last messages, so players can view messages which were written a few days or weeks ago. This can possibly be expanded upon when we receive the appropriate feedback and support.
Ranks
The Regiment page also has a built-in ranking system. Ranks are displayed in-game and in the player overview of the clan. Administrators and founders of the clan can promote or demote players in the clan at will. However, promoting someone to an officer is only possible by the founder, because officers are not not necessarily administrators. Newly recruited players will automatically get the “recruit” rank assigned.
Joining a clan
Players can join and leave a clan as they wish. When joining a clan they have to fill out an application the founder will have created when creating the Regiment. The application is then automatically sent to the Regiment founder, the administrators and moderators. Admins, founders or moderators then just have to accept or deny the application.
Ingame tag system
When joining the game as a member of a Regiment, the game will represent the regiments tags + the current rank tags. For example: Clan tag: 882nd; Rank: Private; Name: Hans
Ingame name: 882nd Pvt. Hans
Medals
Every player, no matter if he is in a Regiment or not can receive medals for playing.
There will be special medals for special acts. For example, you could get a medal for defending a position against a majority of enemies or for playing the game for a certain time. When getting killed by an enemy, you will be able to see his rank, name, regiment, and his medals. Medals are faction specific, players are not able to get Southern medals when playing the Union and vice versa.
Competitive Play
We very much plan to support competitive Regiment play. We are not completely sure how it is best supported, but for now we plan to have an overall Regiment ranking list, where all regiments are shown with their overall score and victories. Regiment competitions will be organised by Regiments where they will choose a specific engagement (or part of an engagement depending on play count) and fight it out. The winner will receive a point/s which will add on to their total ranking.
We will see you next week!
I think we will see a lot of Columns-moving-to-ragged-line. Regiments will still stick together when moving around, but as soon as the firing start, they'll adopt a more combat-effective formation.
I do wonder what the role of the cavalry will be in all this. I fear they will be nothing more then an infantryman on a car-like object.
I guess but a lot of the southern cavalry was armed with revolvers. So close combat would be their thing.I think we will see a lot of Columns-moving-to-ragged-line. Regiments will still stick together when moving around, but as soon as the firing start, they'll adopt a more combat-effective formation.
I do wonder what the role of the cavalry will be in all this. I fear they will be nothing more then an infantryman on a car-like object.
Most cavalry regiments weren't really cavalry, but mounted infantry, and performed as such. It would be a company strength of guys armed with spencer and sharps', or whatever else, would ride into a battle, halt at a nice defensive spot, and skirmish and harass the enemy. They'd remount and get out if the enemy got too close for comfort. So, I could expect to see very similar tactics used in the game.
Lots of southern infantry- and cavarlymen alike carried revolvers in the early stages of the war. They got rid of them soon enough, because close combat didn't happen as much with the infantry as expected, and with the cavalry it was pretty non-existent. Entire regiments of (southern) cavalry didn't even have sabres.Why is that? What it because they were poorly trained? There were several charges during the Franco-Prussian war and by that time they had breechloader rifles.
Cavalry doesn't work like that in America. Because trees. Lots and lots of trees.to my understanding the majority of the battles were fought in open ground.
Lots of southern infantry- and cavarlymen alike carried revolvers in the early stages of the war. They got rid of them soon enough, because close combat didn't happen as much with the infantry as expected, and with the cavalry it was pretty non-existent. Entire regiments of (southern) cavalry didn't even have sabres.Why is that? What it because they were poorly trained? There were several charges during the Franco-Prussian war and by that time they had breechloader rifles.
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.
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.
Why in the hell were massed line formations still in use after 1850 if the rifle was as accurate then as it is now?
I am unconvinced that this is the only reasoning. This seems quite the oversimplification.QuoteWhy 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.
Hey Olaf. Im not sure if this has already been answered to apologies if it has but what will the Rifle accuracy be in BCoF compared to NW?0 Its probably the biggest question I hear form people.
Not sure about accuracy. I hope FSE might implement an aim adjustment where you set the rifle to aim at x amount of yards. The failure of troops to set this aimer correctly resulted in a lot of close up misses because the bullets ended up flying over the heads of the enemy. Maybe 2 keys can be bound to changing the distance desired by x yards each time. Also wind will now play a role in the trajectories.
In regards to my idea on the sights:SpoilerThe Rifle Musket in civil War Combat by Earl J. Hess
"Another, related problem that affected fire effectiveness lay in the parabolic trajectory of the rifle musket. Because of its high arc, the Minié ball created a huge safety zone for the enemy during much of its flight through the air. This problem was most pronounced when firing at distant targets, but this sort of long-distance firing was the key difference between the rifle musket and the old smoothbore weapon. It was incredibly difficult for the average soldier to compensate for the unusual trajectory and make his shots count at ranges longer than about 100 yards. This greatly decreased the effect of the rifle musket precisely in the area where advocates though it might have a revolutionary impact on warfare.
A rifle musket sighted for 300 yards could be deadly at short range, but after about 75 yards the bullet sailed above the height of an average man. The next danger zone lay at the far end of the trajectory, the last 110 yards (about 240 to 350 yards from the shooter). In this last danger zone, the target could be hit at any height along his body, depending on where in the zone he happened to be when the bullet made contact. For the rest, fully 115 yards of the bullet’s flight, only 185 out of 300 yards of the bullet’s journey constituted a danger zone to the enemy."
http://civilwartalk.com/threads/rifle-musket-trajectory.73300/[close]
If the two are combined I would imagine that rifles would be pretty decent in the hands of an experienced rifleman and possibly lesser so in the hands of an amateur.
I am unconvinced that this is the only reasoning. This seems quite the oversimplification.QuoteWhy 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.
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.
Well I'm sorry you aren't convinced, but a fact remains a fact. Why do you think casualties were so high?You haven't touched my argument. I have agreed with you that line formations present a large and obvious target for rifles.
Well, just make it the way people fought in the ACW. Force lines but allow people to take cover behind trees fences and ecetera.
I mean they fought in lines during the War.
Well in that case I'd have to disagree with you on preference, I always prefered shooting people who weren't standing out in the open due to it seeming a bit ludicrous. Tbh I should hate NW because of that.
We can't think that BCoF is going to be NW2, it's a completely different IP and it's going to have it's own rules, those of which we'll only really be able to make up when we actually start playing the game.
Btw, there's a reason why almost all regiments in the US Army had a Light Infantry horn on their headwear.
I'll answer that question with another question, how different was World War I from World War II?
Marks you just proved my point, the way war is fought can shift dramatically over the years. For God's sake it took only 30 years to go from Trench Warfare to small squad combat, you really think it'd take more than 50 years to shift from line columns to using cover if you found it?
Marks you just proved my point, the way war is fought can shift dramatically over the years. For God's sake it took only 30 years to go from Trench Warfare to small squad combat, you really think it'd take more than 50 years to shift from line columns to using cover if you found it?
How was the Merican civil war different to NWs?
Marks you just proved my point, the way war is fought can shift dramatically over the years. For God's sake it took only 30 years to go from Trench Warfare to small squad combat, you really think it'd take more than 50 years to shift from line columns to using cover if you found it?
How was the Merican civil war different to NWs?
Let's see...
Every soldier had a rifled musket
There were repeaters and breechloaders
There were almost no cavalry charges and the only kind of cavalry were Light Dragoons
Ships were made out of steel
Breech-loaded cannons
Pistols that fired more than one shot while only having a single barrel, rifles also
And last but not least, the average soldier was a conscript/militiaman and not a trained regular. So they broke formation and took cover extremely often.
Guns dictate fighting style. You honestly think people used Line formations because it was fun? It was the best way to get the most out of an inaccurate piece of shit (AKA a musket).Uhh yes? Lines are fun scrub, so is melee, shooting is balanced and to make a game based soley 90% on shooting would be boring. The melee mixes things up. People on this thread will have different opinions because the people who are bad at melee (or dont like it) will obviously want shooting to be better while the people who are good at melee want it to stay the same. And undoubtedly shooting will win because too many people don't have enough patience for melee and will deem it OP. #TRUTH
Im actually not bad at melee and enjoy but i agree the accuracy should be higherGuns dictate fighting style. You honestly think people used Line formations because it was fun? It was the best way to get the most out of an inaccurate piece of shit (AKA a musket).Uhh yes? Lines are fun scrub, so is melee, shooting is balanced and to make a game based soley 90% on shooting would be boring. The melee mixes things up. People on this thread will have different opinions because the people who are bad at melee (or dont like it) will obviously want shooting to be better while the people who are good at melee want it to stay the same. And undoubtedly shooting will win because too many people don't have enough patience for melee and will deem it OP. #TRUTH
Guns dictate fighting style. You honestly think people used Line formations because it was fun? It was the best way to get the most out of an inaccurate piece of shit (AKA a musket).Uhh yes? Lines are fun scrub, so is melee, shooting is balanced and to make a game based soley 90% on shooting would be boring. The melee mixes things up. People on this thread will have different opinions because the people who are bad at melee (or dont like it) will obviously want shooting to be better while the people who are good at melee want it to stay the same. And undoubtedly shooting will win because too many people don't have enough patience for melee and will deem it OP. #TRUTH
You guys need to stop bitching and moaning about melee. This is an entirely different era of warfare. You had rifled muskets being used by men who were conscripts and militias, to full on regular and veteran troops. Yeah, you're going to get shot from long distances with high accuracy. During the Napoleonic Era, there were all smoothbores, except the few rifles (in ratio to smoothbores), and it opened much larger room for the melee, which is emulated in NW. The ACW was all about who had the larger army, better supplied, better discipline, and better morale. Melee was even less than the Napoleonic Era of warfare.
Also, on the topic of big regiments having dominance, that's good. It'll make people join the bigger regiments and you'll see more big regiments in big formations, rather than little regiments who are all over the place and get annihilated fast.
You guys need to stop bitching and moaning about melee. This is an entirely different era of warfare. You had rifled muskets being used by men who were conscripts and militias, to full on regular and veteran troops. Yeah, you're going to get shot from long distances with high accuracy. During the Napoleonic Era, there were all smoothbores, except the few rifles (in ratio to smoothbores), and it opened much larger room for the melee, which is emulated in NW. The ACW was all about who had the larger army, better supplied, better discipline, and better morale. Melee was even less than the Napoleonic Era of warfare.
Also, on the topic of big regiments having dominance, that's good. It'll make people join the bigger regiments and you'll see more big regiments in big formations, rather than little regiments who are all over the place and get annihilated fast.
^Effectively this
I'm getting a wee bit tired of people expecting this to be NW2. It's a new game, a new damn gameplay system. Don't expect more of the same, and if you don't like it that's your damn problem.
You guys need to stop bitching and moaning about melee. This is an entirely different era of warfare. You had rifled muskets being used by men who were conscripts and militias, to full on regular and veteran troops. Yeah, you're going to get shot from long distances with high accuracy. During the Napoleonic Era, there were all smoothbores, except the few rifles (in ratio to smoothbores), and it opened much larger room for the melee, which is emulated in NW. The ACW was all about who had the larger army, better supplied, better discipline, and better morale. Melee was even less than the Napoleonic Era of warfare.
Also, on the topic of big regiments having dominance, that's good. It'll make people join the bigger regiments and you'll see more big regiments in big formations, rather than little regiments who are all over the place and get annihilated fast.
^Effectively this
I'm getting a wee bit tired of people expecting this to be NW2. It's a new game, a new damn gameplay system. Don't expect more of the same, and if you don't like it that's your damn problem.
The fact is this, the civil war was fought using LINE formations. If the muskets are made to accurate it will destroy the possibility of using a line formations in battle. Therefore the game will have killed its historical accuracy as well as destroyed its line battle based community. So go ahead keep encouraging extremely accurate rifles, and watch BCoF lose its community and overall end up being a game that dies within a year or 2 of release.
You guys need to stop bitching and moaning about melee. This is an entirely different era of warfare. You had rifled muskets being used by men who were conscripts and militias, to full on regular and veteran troops. Yeah, you're going to get shot from long distances with high accuracy. During the Napoleonic Era, there were all smoothbores, except the few rifles (in ratio to smoothbores), and it opened much larger room for the melee, which is emulated in NW. The ACW was all about who had the larger army, better supplied, better discipline, and better morale. Melee was even less than the Napoleonic Era of warfare.
Also, on the topic of big regiments having dominance, that's good. It'll make people join the bigger regiments and you'll see more big regiments in big formations, rather than little regiments who are all over the place and get annihilated fast.
^Effectively this
I'm getting a wee bit tired of people expecting this to be NW2. It's a new game, a new damn gameplay system. Don't expect more of the same, and if you don't like it that's your damn problem.
The fact is this, the civil war was fought using LINE formations. If the muskets are made to accurate it will destroy the possibility of using a line formations in battle. Therefore the game will have killed its historical accuracy as well as destroyed its line battle based community. So go ahead keep encouraging extremely accurate rifles, and watch BCoF lose its community and overall end up being a game that dies within a year or 2 of release.
Here's a brilliant idea Einstein, FORCE THE FORMATIONS!
You guys need to stop bitching and moaning about melee. This is an entirely different era of warfare. You had rifled muskets being used by men who were conscripts and militias, to full on regular and veteran troops. Yeah, you're going to get shot from long distances with high accuracy. During the Napoleonic Era, there were all smoothbores, except the few rifles (in ratio to smoothbores), and it opened much larger room for the melee, which is emulated in NW. The ACW was all about who had the larger army, better supplied, better discipline, and better morale. Melee was even less than the Napoleonic Era of warfare.
Also, on the topic of big regiments having dominance, that's good. It'll make people join the bigger regiments and you'll see more big regiments in big formations, rather than little regiments who are all over the place and get annihilated fast.
^Effectively this
I'm getting a wee bit tired of people expecting this to be NW2. It's a new game, a new damn gameplay system. Don't expect more of the same, and if you don't like it that's your damn problem.
The fact is this, the civil war was fought using LINE formations. If the muskets are made to accurate it will destroy the possibility of using a line formations in battle. Therefore the game will have killed its historical accuracy as well as destroyed its line battle based community. So go ahead keep encouraging extremely accurate rifles, and watch BCoF lose its community and overall end up being a game that dies within a year or 2 of release.
Here's a brilliant idea Einstein, FORCE THE FORMATIONS!
First of all, don't be a fucking asshole.
Secondly, why would an event force lines if the rifles are pin point accurate. Lines would be decimated nearly instantly.
If lines worked in North and South (Which, they did by the way) then I see no reason why they'd fail here.They never worked in North and South :o what NaS did you play >.< Lines made no sense because you would be destroyed in seconds by everybody because of the ridiculous accuracy. Line battles became skirmish fests, and it's likely going to be like that in BCoF as well, going to have to rename "Line Battles" into "Giant playground of plebs with accurate rifles sniping"
The reason that NaS is more of a skirmishing fest is that's what it would have been back then. Yes, of course in the HUGE 10K vs 10K battles there would be MASSIVE lines like in Pickett's charge. But NaS is 100 vs 100 at max. That would be 1 company of 1 regiment. Not even a regiment while some of these battles were armies of a few hundred thousand. Ya, there is a reason when you hear of a fight between 2 scouting companies it is called a Skirmish not a Battle, cause that's what it was. Now, if it was 1K vs 1K then there would be A LOT more lines. 250 vs 250 i could still see a lot of people using lines. Hell, I know the DA will more than likely be doing a 250 man line :) . Anyway, I think it would be fine if they are more accurate, if not at least more ammo than NW or NaS, 26-31 rounds would not be historical at all (usually) more like 60-100 or some way to refill ammo.If lines worked in North and South (Which, they did by the way) then I see no reason why they'd fail here.They never worked in North and South :o what NaS did you play >.< Lines made no sense because you would be destroyed in seconds by everybody because of the ridiculous accuracy. Line battles became skirmish fests, and it's likely going to be like that in BCoF as well, going to have to rename "Line Battles" into "Giant playground of plebs with accurate rifles sniping"
From a gameplay perspective nobody wants to play a game where it's all skirmishing, that will die out fast. There's a reason why NW was so successful, it balanced the two. To trump one over the other will destroy gameplay and most likely the community.well, in my opinion Melee does trump shooting in NW. By a long shot. Sure there are regiments that are really good at shooting and can cut people down, but melee is what really does the damage. Also, in a way if accuracy is up getting in closer is a bit easier (this is weird logic here) but if the aiming area is smaller than when you get closer the person has to be a lot better at turning in your direction and still have it on you. Basically since you are up close when they fire it is easier to dodge a smaller area of aim. But yes, I would like to see a very balanced game but I believe that this could be fixed by having more people, also the fact I believe what they are doing in there battle type (I can't remember the name) they are going to have it so you respawn with your regiment sometime after you die. Huge Line Battles (by that I mean giant lines like actual lines) would be a lot easier cause you can die and just go back to it, not die and wait an hour. We will see what they do, I hope they make the right call :)
If lines worked in North and South (Which, they did by the way) then I see no reason why they'd fail here.They never worked in North and South :o what NaS did you play >.< Lines made no sense because you would be destroyed in seconds by everybody because of the ridiculous accuracy. Line battles became skirmish fests, and it's likely going to be like that in BCoF as well, going to have to rename "Line Battles" into "Giant playground of plebs with accurate rifles sniping"
only times in NaS that i remembered regiments using lines was the historical line battles. Now while it sort of worked because 100 men can take the punishment. But since i doubt every regiment in a line battle for BCof will form one big line together. I hope the gun accuracy is not too good so that you would never get into melee combat and be destroyed in seconds in a line formation.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cev40ysQB5M[/youtube]
Aye, because everyone knows a bayonet is much more worthwhile than an actual damned GUN.Never said it was and I understand that. But this is a game you seem to forget. And you also forgot me and a large amount of people also don't want the rifles buffed to shit and be shot down every single Time you try and charge. Who wants to get shot or play a game focused mainly on shooting, it would be boring as fuck given the era. Because I don't know about you, but shooting pixels in the distance is not fun.
For the last bloody time man, this is NOT NW! This is an era of warfare where melee engagements were much, MUCH rarer than before. Me and a large amount of people don't want to see this game's rifles get nerfed to shit because a few people are scared of losing their precious ability to stab someone.
It's not a melee/not melee discussion. I like melee, honestly it's a fun aspect of the game, but I don't want historical accuracy to be watered down for the sake of it.+1
Huge maps mean nothing when your enemy is 100m in front of you and you have to charge. And again whatever north and south you played was not the one I did. Unless I played the wrong one, along with all the other people of the NA community who abandoned north and south because of its shit balance. I get completely it's a new game and I'm in no way asking for an NW reskin but what I am saying is this game is deriving off a devoted community that expect many things. And it's unarguable that the people who play NW are going to play BCoF, so they have to still respect that community because it's all they have.Ok, I play North and South everyday several hours a day. The Brigade I am in charge of runs 4 events a week. Me and my regiment attend every single event hosted in NaS (7 a week). Trust me I know it is not unbalanced as shit. The most important part about it is still melee. Just a week ago Judge in my regiment got 17 kills in 2 round only 3 were shooting. At the same time Allen got 11 only 2 being from shooting. Just last night Judge and Gedizz killed 10 people in melee in 1 round. Melee is still as important as can be, shooting just lowers the amount of enemies. I have NEVER, EVER seen a round won by a shootout in my over 1K hours on NaS and over 100 events in the past 8 months. Side note: the NA community didn't abandon NaS, you might have cause you couldn't deal with someone shooting better than you, but I am still here and the rest of Bragg's Brigade is.
And you also forgot me and a large amount of people also don't want the rifles buffed to shit and be shot down every single Time you try and charge. Who wants to get shot or play a game focused mainly on shooting, it would be boring as fuck given the era. Because I don't know about you, but shooting pixels in the distance is not fun.
I don't claim to be the best at melee but what I love about it is you have a fair chance against your opponent because neither you nor him have any advantage, it comes down to skill.
And you also forgot me and a large amount of people also don't want the rifles buffed to shit and be shot down every single Time you try and charge. Who wants to get shot or play a game focused mainly on shooting, it would be boring as fuck given the era. Because I don't know about you, but shooting pixels in the distance is not fun.
This. It already feels in NW linebattles like the promise of an inevitable epic melee is the light at the end of the tunnel of tedious musket volleys. I understand historical accuracy is important (and dont want it cut down too far either), but quite simply put I have no interest in playing a game focused on shooting that plays out as: left click to shoot, watch the 10+ second reload animation, repeat until shot yourself.
If BCoF turns out to be what some people here apparently want, a game where battles are decided by shooting and melee is an extremely rare "last resort", I think I will stick to NW, and I don't think I'd be the only one; there's a reason shooting-focused mods tend to die out extremely quickly.I don't claim to be the best at melee but what I love about it is you have a fair chance against your opponent because neither you nor him have any advantage, it comes down to skill.
Again, the melee system in NW is one of the most rewarding in all of gaming. As you play more and more, you can easily observe marked improvement in your skill/performance, growing from barely surviving in a 1v1 to being able to easily take on multiple opponents at once. Any random idiot with a musket can left click and get a lucky kill, but the melee system rewards your skill and practice every time and is in my honest opinion the most fun aspect of the game (yes it is a game, though it seems some people have forgotten).
I don't mind if the accuracy is increased to some extent to represent historical improvements, I only hope it is not increased to the point where battles are simple shootouts and melee, the most exciting and fun aspect of NW imho, almost never takes place. Of course, if that is what the game ends up being I will accept that it is what it is (ie. not a game I am personally interested in) and just revert back to and stick with NW until either it entirely dies off or is replaced by a game more in line with my expectations/interests.
Historical accuracy is great, but I personally have no interest in playing left click simulator 2k14 purely for the sake of it.
+1,000,000. And a side note. I am only bitching about this a lot because I want another historical game that I will sink another 1,200 hours on. Napoleonic wars earned over 1,200 hours of my gaming life because of its longevity and addiction. I only want the best game and most fun game possible because I, much like you, am a gamer who loves to sink hours upon hours into games that are fun, addicting, and satisfying.SpoilerAnd you also forgot me and a large amount of people also don't want the rifles buffed to shit and be shot down every single Time you try and charge. Who wants to get shot or play a game focused mainly on shooting, it would be boring as fuck given the era. Because I don't know about you, but shooting pixels in the distance is not fun.
This. It already feels in NW linebattles like the promise of an inevitable epic melee is the light at the end of the tunnel of tedious musket volleys. I understand historical accuracy is important (and dont want it cut down too far either), but quite simply put I have no interest in playing a game focused on shooting that plays out as: left click to shoot, watch the 10+ second reload animation, repeat until shot yourself.
If BCoF turns out to be what some people here apparently want, a game where battles are decided by shooting and melee is an extremely rare "last resort", I think I will stick to NW, and I don't think I'd be the only one; there's a reason shooting-focused mods tend to die out extremely quickly.I don't claim to be the best at melee but what I love about it is you have a fair chance against your opponent because neither you nor him have any advantage, it comes down to skill.
Again, the melee system in NW is one of the most rewarding in all of gaming. As you play more and more, you can easily observe marked improvement in your skill/performance, growing from barely surviving in a 1v1 to being able to easily take on multiple opponents at once. Any random idiot with a musket can left click and get a lucky kill, but the melee system rewards your skill and practice every time and is in my honest opinion the most fun aspect of the game (yes it is a game, though it seems some people have forgotten).
I don't mind if the accuracy is increased to some extent to represent historical improvements, I only hope it is not increased to the point where battles are simple shootouts and melee, the most exciting and fun aspect of NW imho, almost never takes place. Of course, if that is what the game ends up being I will accept that it is what it is (ie. not a game I am personally interested in) and just revert back to and stick with NW until either it entirely dies off or is replaced by a game more in line with my expectations/interests.
Historical accuracy is great, but I personally have no interest in playing left click simulator 2k14 purely for the sake of it.[close]
The smooth boards had also good use in battles since many users put several smaller thing with the normal sized ball so it became sort of a shotgun and was super effective.
depends what the range was :)
but the accuracy of the troops was not like that thru out the whole war?
then I wonder how the south killed twice as many and how so many died when the accuracy was so bad? I am not very informed on the accuracy part in the CW so I am just asking :D
but wasn't there in percentage better shooters in the confederate army since many of them came from a hunting background and such. Didn't that play a role
then I wonder how the south killed twice as many and how so many died when the accuracy was so bad? I am not very informed on the accuracy part in the CW so I am just asking :D
There is an interesting statistic about the First Battle of Manassas.
There was 1 hit on 10.000 musket shots. Thats not a high accuracy.. :P
There is an interesting statistic about the First Battle of Manassas.
There was 1 hit on 10.000 musket shots. Thats not a high accuracy.. :P
I'm going to take an easy guess and say that both of those figures are wildly exaggerated.There is an interesting statistic about the First Battle of Manassas.
There was 1 hit on 10.000 musket shots. Thats not a high accuracy.. :P
And some people estimate that the US armed forces fired 250,000 rounds for every insurgent killed in Iraq.
We need to return to the more accurate rifled muskets, apparently.
So far this whole thread seems to me to be a bunch of people afraid of changing the metagame.[/spoiler]
I have already explained in previous posts exactly why more accurate muskets could be offset by good game design, and smart tactics.
You're all afraid that you won't be able to run around in your laughably ineffective lines.
As it is, a single man going rambo and using skirmish tactics suddenly makes you all incapable of either enjoying yourselves or being effective in your pretty formations.
This is a result of poor gameplay design. I think battles in NW should be based on what works. And what works is dependent entirely on the design.
The developers must produce gameplay which encourages the players to act a certain way. Players should not be encouraged to play a certain way by anything except the game's functions.
If fighting in a line is ineffective, it is because the conditions are not in place for them to be effective.
The first problem which is presented to an effective infantry line, is that their men die in a single ranged hit most of the time.
All the enemy needs to do to destroy you is sit behind cover and shoot you dead.
That's simply how it is currently in NW.
How do we fix this? We implement a fair damage system, which lends itself to accurate musketry.
Get shot in the head? Dead. Get shot in the heart/lungs? Dead.
Get shot anywhere else? You start to bleed out. Bandaging yourself stops the bleeding, and takes a little less time than reloading a musket.
Different parts of the body cause you to bleed out at different rates. If you bleed too much, you die.
Oh look, now you can have accurate muskets, because they aren't magic plasma lazers that oneshot you.SpoilerNow your line doesn't disintegrate as soon as you take a volley. Also, realistic (3-4 shots per minute) reload speeds, please.
This will help to balance any weapon, by the way. Not just the rifled muskets.
Infantry need to have some impetus to stay together. The Vikingr mod did this very well by making it extremely difficult to solo multiple opponents.
They did this by heavily limiting footwork. They didn't decrease the maximum movement speed of infantry, but the rate at which they change their direction.
Less maneuverability means you can't just run circles around a bunch of enemies. This will force players to stay close and work together or die, making tight formations such as lines more effective in melee.[close]
I'm going to take an easy guess and say that both of those figures are wildly exaggerated.
if it takes a million rounds to kill four insurgents, even the Americans would be out of ammunition.
Aye, the game's going to have sharpshooters with actual rifles. Could you imagine how frustrating it'd be to put your crosshair right on a guy's head and then get gipped because the random number gods decided to get a sense of humor?
The first one is what happens when you get kneecapped by a minie ball, yes.You aren't getting up after thatSpoiler(https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nlm.nih.gov%2Fvisibleproofs%2Fmedia%2Fdetailed%2Fii_a_116a.jpg&hash=97bce0236e3ce3f9e55b7fc94355c88017eecc4a)[close]Or thatWARNING: Very bloody(https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftnation.t-nation.com%2Fforum_images%2Fd%2Fe%2Fde59b_ORIG-1118111550.jpg&hash=3764b81caa1c14ae14fe5672d26f1e42da87021a)[close]
This wouldn't work. If you've played iron Europe you would know that bleeding out is an annoying and nearly game breaking mechanic. It adds no fun dimension to the game. It adds an annoyance and hinderance to the game and flow. Overall I don't agree with what you think should be done. Because many players including myself would agree that your changes would mess with the flow of gameplay and make for a boring and more frustrating experience.I have played Iron Europe. Their system is not what I had in mind. I think Red Orchestra's damage system is what I would prefer.
And teamwork is already a necessity. Players who are skilled at melee get rewarded for being beasts when being surrounded not because of broken mechanics but because their own skill and sometimes spam rewards them because they can pull it off. A game of fun and addiction is a game that gives you the tools and play space to utilize the games mechanics and become used to them and approach the game in your own way and rewarding you for becoming more adept than others at something.
...what game is that?
...what game is that?It's a fistful of frags, it's actually pretty good plus it's a source mod so it's free on steam.
...what game is that?It's a fistful of frags, it's actually pretty good plus it's a source mod so it's free on steam.
what rifle accurasy?
Balance would be ongoing. I think they already mentioned that if their first attempt doesn't work in regards to rifle accuracy then they will balance things further.
6) Reducing pointblanking. Imho, pointblanking, in NW, is a risky strategy, employed only by useless fools who can't melee. Simple. However, should fighting ever develop into CQC (say in a building, for example, or a trench), then melee should be the emphasis, not a desperate attempt to shoot the enemy who is two inches away . Requiring some time to aim, and increasing the time needed to swap between shooting and melee mode on one's rifle, could discourage pointblanking.
6) Reducing pointblanking. Imho, pointblanking, in NW, is a risky strategy, employed only by useless fools who can't melee. Simple. However, should fighting ever develop into CQC (say in a building, for example, or a trench), then melee should be the emphasis, not a desperate attempt to shoot the enemy who is two inches away . Requiring some time to aim, and increasing the time needed to swap between shooting and melee mode on one's rifle, could discourage pointblanking.
But it works both ways. Pointblanking first defenders in the face before poking the rest in the eye when 20 defenders discharged shots against single musician dancing out in the open instead of using common sense just begs for trouble if it was not dictated by extreme video game logic as it is in typical NW public siege game. Why I would not employ something which offers better chances of success to storm a wall or a breach since it boils down to risk vs reward? It is not functionally too different from current situation where thanks to 3rd person, one can easily aim in advance and 360noscope the moment they step outside and pointblank reliably. If one gets rid of 3rd person* but in exchange allows pointblanking and more fluid general control over things to a point, there is suddenly a case for “suppressive fire” (as much as that can be achieved in shooters that is) which offers better shock value when a group of players actually close in for melee range while the others are more or less picking individual heads popping up, since instead of that quickshot kill up close you have no idea if someone is near by or not. Red Orchestra 1 - which is fairly realistic WW2 game where one shot kills and getting shot from places you couldn't even see properly was commonplace - did this pretty well since even one or two guys with bayonets managing to hit a blind spot and storm a room could end up with tons of bayonet kills, sometimes after they managed to shoot their to go for staby-staby time.
And in case if someone brings up likelihood of suppressive fire from modern perspective and how anachronistic it probably is to a point in historical context, it is no different from trying to simulate formation warfare when there is no formation warfare as far as generic gameplay goes. Events etc are complete different beasts from public gameplay, but even those events hardly bear any resemblence to formation warfare and their realities to begin with. Therefore I say that is bit silly argument.
*I am one of those who refuses to play M&B in third person because like banners, I believe it is for pussies. That is just me, but I wonder how many mad melee skillz or quickshots would turn sour if there was way to disable that.
1) Most of the community finds it impossible to play in first person, as the camera FOV is too narrow, and the animations and awkward, and it's (for some people) harder to see what attack/defense they are holding. Therefore, what you are proposing is entirely irrelevant to the vast majority of the game's community, who plays in 3rd person, and may only switch to first for some shooting. I'm actually kinda sick of people coming from other games, like Red Orchestra, or even ArmA , and telling us how "CoD" we all are, and how our game "lacks the historical formations" needed. In a charge, IN THE EARLY 1800s, PEOPLE DID CHARGE INTO A BREACH "LIKE RAMBOS", AS THEY HAD TO (MELEE) KILL THE OTHERS BEFORE THEY GOT SHOT DOWN BY THE DEFENDERS. Did you expect us to form a little line, even in Public Servers (worse inter-team comms), and RP a Line Battle every time we played? No. We have proper LBs for that.
Face it, and this is to all those <redacted> who want to turn our game into a shooter.2) Suppressing fire only works in NW if tens of people camp out a spot, shooting at anything that moves (but then the reload time ruins it). This deters str8 up charging for some, but seeing how inaccurate the musket is in NW, doesn't really scare Y0L0-ers, especially if the defenders providing suppressing fire aren't physically blocking the way to the flag.SpoilerFSE WILL NOT TURN BCOF INTO A FIRST PERSON SHOOTER SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS THE ACW. NOR WILL IT DEGRADE THE MELEE INTO A "PRESS-X-TO-KILL" TYPE THING. READ THE DEV BLOGS.[close]
The game is both first and 3rd person, with the emphasis in 3rd person.
Each server will have up to 500 players on one map. Players will group together in regiments and battalions. Similiar to what you know from Modern Day Shooter Squads, but larger. Think of something like 20-50 human players per "squad"/regiment.
Each regiment has a small number of higher ranking officers that are in command of this certain regiments. Officers have to follow the commands of their General.
The General can either be controlled by the AI, or by an actual Human.
There will be an integrated chain of command system. Lower ranking players will see their orders being displayed on their screen. I.e. the officers would see the Generals orders, and the lower ranking soldiers would see the officers orders displayed.
In reality, this is more complicated. The game will feature a proper chain of command system, and systems to prevent players from splitting up and going alone. However, I do not want to go into detail about that yet. All I can say, is that even in public play, most players will be sticking together in groups and work together.
The game promotes teamplay, not kills. We are actually thinking about not displaying kill/death statistics at all.
As I said please read the posts. And as you seem to be the only one who has completely understood the sistuation in the forums, feel free to enlighten us all. After all, my reading comp is shit. *shakes head* *facedesk* *facedesk* *facedesk* *facedesk*
As I said please read the posts. And as you seem to be the only one who has completely understood the sistuation in the forums, feel free to enlighten us all. After all, my reading comp is shit. *shakes head* *facedesk* *facedesk* *facedesk* *facedesk*
I have read that, but does that actually tell us about anything about the state of melee or functional gameplay between shooting, poking people in the eye, and teamwork and other gameplay? As they said, they don't go into detail and thus, the cynic in me right now says tv tv sports sports tv. If it is really that enlightening, why is your original post quite pleading in tone about keeping reasonable balance between the two ends? It's spelled out there after all.
Having said that, if either of us have nothing to contribute in this conversation in public without going into plain old flaming I suggest we continue using PMs and leave things quiet.
I wonder how long this depate continue..
Even though we don't know the details (balancing, etc.), we can still discuss the game's PRINCIPLE and focus. And while you may not give a shit, being so casual and cool and others have supported FSE and played NW (and MM before it), and so are more concerned about what will happen to this game. Claiming it is "their end product" (so yeah, who cares, it's their business, not ours, right?) shows how little you care about this game, and clearly displays how you stupidly forget that FSE only amounts to their dedicated community and fans (like most Indie companies who have only just started to capture the attention of the larger media outlets and the more... should we say "mainstream?.. gaming audience.) Therefore, even though I'm sure, towards the end of the dev cycle, that the developers will attract more attention, it is certainly reasonable that some, including myself, would like to support the company and make suggestions. And the great thing is that the devs can look at our ideas, and perhaps even implement them into their game! Incredible, right? If you don't like it, and you think that wind, humidity, gun sway, redduced pointblanks, reasonable reloading time, etc. will ruin the game (even though they could be delicately used for balancing), then, as you said, we can perfectly well agree to disagree. BCoF is still in Alpha.
As for the "knee-jerk reaction", I personally think it should be justified, to cut off unreasonable (in my opinion) demands that have no place to be ever implemented in this game. You do not say "stfu" (which personally I never have used - stfu is not an argument) to someone who suggests bullet drop. But you do say stfu (albiet in a more polite manner, and yes that manner is for me spamming in huge red block letters - may be the only way to break your obstinacy) to someone who suggests that we should go 1st Person, even when the devs have clearly referred to the exact opposite (emphasis on 3rd person). I believe we can discuss more when the Closed Beta comes out.
and yes, as thankfully you understand, the casual crowd, as well as ppl from other communities, wil undoubtedly try to promote what they believe should be the focus. That doesn't necessarily make your opinion count for more than mine (if not even the opposite...)
As for the stuff Ive said about the accuracy, I hoped that some of the suggestions could be taken into account by the devs. So we start with a very accurate musket, and we add some of the aforementioned REALISTIC factors which could be used both to balance the muskets/rifles (so we don't see snipeshotz from kilometres away, and could deepen the shooting system (Depth = Good, right? We kinda need to learn the mechanics gradually to perfection over time, not in an afternoon like in CoD :P ) . The comparison with the pistols in NW is completely irrelevant, as that's a product of your own imagination, and nothing I said ever encouraged so inaccurate firearms. Exaggeration works well my friend, until the other party calls it out. We can continue this debate when the closed beta is ready.
Not to mention say, possible CPU and lag effects caused by wind effect. If it is fixed and abstract, it is very easy to just open the map data to see the values and start working on how to exploit it but if it is more dynamic how well that translates to 400+ players on the same time on a server given there's more stuff to compute? Alongside penetration data, destructive environments, wind effect on trailing smoke and obscuring vision etc. Unless it is completely random, which in turn could easily turn what little skill sharpshooting etc may require into mild extension to RNG syndrome. Hypothetically speaking that is.Well, I guess we will see how RNG affects the lag. To be honest, I feel that again the middle ground is the best option here - having some features to make the aiming more realistic (I don't see how it turns "gamey" as you said, as these were real factors affecting the soldiers at the time.) Smoke, shrapnel and debris (the fear factor), wind, rain, lack of training (causing barrel sway), and the need to readjust the iron sights to account for the target moving, are reasons why the accuracy of the troops wasn't that high during the period, despite the emergence of newer, more accurate firearms before and during the War. Therefore, as I explained in a previous post, I hoped that the inclusion of such mechanics could both serve as a balancing tool to pervent the rifles from being OP, as well as features that a true marksman would need to learn to dominate with shooting. Even though excessive RNG may be too heavy to stomach for some, the NW musket (based on Native's crossbow) is the polar opposite, which both lacks realism (for those screaming realism Hurah!), and depth.
(I don't see how it turns "gamey" as you said, as these were real factors affecting the soldiers at the time.)
Mind you, I do not propose all-or-nothing approach but I still believe wind effects and plethora of others are pretty major suggestions for game that is not aiming to be a simulation.
As for the argument "Humans are imperfect", if you universally applied this logic to the games industry, then, in theory, the only game you would ever trust would be one designed, and coded, by yourself.
All I am simply assuming here is that something probably will be botched in some form by the time of release. New engine, quite ambitious design and reach, all features, technical stuff etc leaves plenty of room for small mistakes which can easily add up to bigger issues. No release is perfect, but it is no different from the mechanical principle machine with 500 moving parts is more likely to suffer pediatrics and more frequent post-pediatrics issues than one with 20 moving parts.
Of course, a more ambitious project is more likely to have small errors/bugs/glitches than a smaler more focused game. That, I believe, is partly why, for instance, Bohemia Interactive's ArmA III spent an entire year in Steam Early Access, despite BI having both the experience, and the funding, to support a "clean" release of the product. Why did it need so much time? Being an incredibly complex simulator, the team needed it to essentially be beta-tested by the game's huge audience, and thus this period was vital for the much needed optimisation for a great number of PC Hardware, and delicate balancing. The result: ArmA emerged a rather optimised, and graphically beautiful game (I personally find that photorealism, when used appropriately, can have a stunning impression on the player), and had a much more stable proper release in March 2013.
This depate has been gong on for 3 pages, thats a good way to get more posts.
Im not so concerned for melee as much as i love it. What I'm concerned about is if i have say 25 men in a line with me which i might add is what the average regiment size has and we form line that we will get gunned down in 10 secs and have to wait for 500 other people to die till the next round. Many a people might ask why form line thus destroying the very name of a line battle because the guns are too accurate.I was actually concerned about OP accuracy too - hope FSE can use some realistic factors for shooting to balance it out slightly
Im not so concerned for melee as much as i love it. What I'm concerned about is if i have say 25 men in a line with me which i might add is what the average regiment size has and we form line that we will get gunned down in 10 secs and have to wait for 500 other people to die till the next round. Many a people might ask why form line thus destroying the very name of a line battle because the guns are too accurate.
Well, we are talking about 500 man matches here. I doubt regiments are going to stay the same size.So just because it is BCoF all regiments will magically get enough active members to drastically increase their size? It is more likely that you'll see a greater number of smaller regiments, which are slightly bigger than they were in NW (having eaten up the new pool of recruits), rather than a few "mega-regs". (Unless the 33rd, 77y and 15th, with all their detachments and companies, play on the same server :P :P ) I guess we should wait and see how big the fanbase is on BCoF...and how many are prepared to join a reg and be active to properly learn the (complex) game mehcanics...
I've got to agree with Onii, Boberton and Wismar here,What you wrote in the end there is exactly what I'm afraid battle cry of freedom is going to be. In linebattles or events hiding behind fences, behind bushes and trees. And no actual lines. That's just boring to me.
BCoF is not and should not be like NW, melee should be an afterthought and you should be able to nail someone at the appropriate range with a rifled musket. The thing that made the ACW so deadly was the fact that outdated tactics were used with modern weaponry. Breech-loaders, repeaters, trapdoors, revolvers and even came into this day and age (Hell even Grenades were modernized in this war).
This is a new game, on a new engine, with a new system of play. Yeah, events are going to be different, but that makes perfect sense. If FSE was making a World War I game would you want there to only be single loading bolt action rifles from the Anglo Zulu War? The game has to meet the era, and this was the era of mainly skirmishing armies and light tactics.
Also, all of the LBs I've had in North and South were... really fun. I liked ordering my regiment's Pioneer to build fence cover for our line, I liked having to hide behind walls and in forests to save myself from an early grave, it was much more fun than standing in a line waiting to be shot like you do in NW.
I welcome this change of game-play, a new pace is needed.
I've got to agree with Onii, Boberton and Wismar here,What you wrote in the end there is exactly what I'm afraid battle cry of freedom is going to be. In linebattles or events hiding behind fences, behind bushes and trees. And no actual lines. That's just boring to me.
BCoF is not and should not be like NW, melee should be an afterthought and you should be able to nail someone at the appropriate range with a rifled musket. The thing that made the ACW so deadly was the fact that outdated tactics were used with modern weaponry. Breech-loaders, repeaters, trapdoors, revolvers and even came into this day and age (Hell even Grenades were modernized in this war).
This is a new game, on a new engine, with a new system of play. Yeah, events are going to be different, but that makes perfect sense. If FSE was making a World War I game would you want there to only be single loading bolt action rifles from the Anglo Zulu War? The game has to meet the era, and this was the era of mainly skirmishing armies and light tactics.
Also, all of the LBs I've had in North and South were... really fun. I liked ordering my regiment's Pioneer to build fence cover for our line, I liked having to hide behind walls and in forests to save myself from an early grave, it was much more fun than standing in a line waiting to be shot like you do in NW.
I welcome this change of game-play, a new pace is needed.
I've got to agree with Onii, Boberton and Wismar here,What you wrote in the end there is exactly what I'm afraid battle cry of freedom is going to be. In linebattles or events hiding behind fences, behind bushes and trees. And no actual lines. That's just boring to me.
BCoF is not and should not be like NW, melee should be an afterthought and you should be able to nail someone at the appropriate range with a rifled musket. The thing that made the ACW so deadly was the fact that outdated tactics were used with modern weaponry. Breech-loaders, repeaters, trapdoors, revolvers and even came into this day and age (Hell even Grenades were modernized in this war).
This is a new game, on a new engine, with a new system of play. Yeah, events are going to be different, but that makes perfect sense. If FSE was making a World War I game would you want there to only be single loading bolt action rifles from the Anglo Zulu War? The game has to meet the era, and this was the era of mainly skirmishing armies and light tactics.
Also, all of the LBs I've had in North and South were... really fun. I liked ordering my regiment's Pioneer to build fence cover for our line, I liked having to hide behind walls and in forests to save myself from an early grave, it was much more fun than standing in a line waiting to be shot like you do in NW.
I welcome this change of game-play, a new pace is needed.
I've got to agree with Onii, Boberton and Wismar here,What you wrote in the end there is exactly what I'm afraid battle cry of freedom is going to be. In linebattles or events hiding behind fences, behind bushes and trees. And no actual lines. That's just boring to me.
BCoF is not and should not be like NW, melee should be an afterthought and you should be able to nail someone at the appropriate range with a rifled musket. The thing that made the ACW so deadly was the fact that outdated tactics were used with modern weaponry. Breech-loaders, repeaters, trapdoors, revolvers and even came into this day and age (Hell even Grenades were modernized in this war).
This is a new game, on a new engine, with a new system of play. Yeah, events are going to be different, but that makes perfect sense. If FSE was making a World War I game would you want there to only be single loading bolt action rifles from the Anglo Zulu War? The game has to meet the era, and this was the era of mainly skirmishing armies and light tactics.
Also, all of the LBs I've had in North and South were... really fun. I liked ordering my regiment's Pioneer to build fence cover for our line, I liked having to hide behind walls and in forests to save myself from an early grave, it was much more fun than standing in a line waiting to be shot like you do in NW.
I welcome this change of game-play, a new pace is needed.
Dear god that with 500 people too?
I pity those who die in the first couple minutes by arty or unlucky cross map shots. Would be fun watching for literally an hour while regs take cross map shots at each other hiding behind trees and fences. If BCOF really becomes a skirmish fest like youre implying it'll get old really fast.
I really dont see what you find enjoyable about hiding behind trees/fences anchored in one position moving your mouse slightly (with melee an "afterthought" and utter stagnation) and left clicking but to each his own I guess.
I played North and South in a Skirmisher regiment. But the LBs I went to allowed line infantry to garrison fences and buildings.
That post's ages old, my opinion on the game's changed a decent bit. I want the game to have a semblance of realism, so I do want forced line combat for non-skirmishers.
Also in the War, regiments often times did use cover if it was available to them. One famous example is the stone-wall at Fredricksburg.
I played North and South in a Skirmisher regiment. But the LBs I went to allowed line infantry to garrison fences and buildings.
That post's ages old, my opinion on the game's changed a decent bit. I want the game to have a semblance of realism, so I do want forced line combat for non-skirmishers.
Also in the War, regiments often times did use cover if it was available to them. One famous example is the stone-wall at Fredricksburg.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYg3v9lUuNA[/youtube]What if BCoF linebattles would be like that on the video.... ;D
My God, I wonder if we'll ever be able to actually do a 250 vs 250 large line battle. We did a few 100 vs 100 ones in the Union Army LBs, and those were amazing.Stupendous, groundshaking, immense, lag. With a Capital L. :P hehe