A concern on Rifle accuracy changing game play

[OttoFIN]

This depate has been gong on for 3 pages, thats a good way to get more posts.

[KL4R1N0G4MPR0S]

This depate has been gong on for 3 pages, thats a good way to get more posts.

Get more posts? Are you serious? Firstly, getting posts does not increase your rank in the forums, so writing that just to get promoted pretty much is pointless anyway.
Secondly, we were actually sitting and devoting some time to actually think about and write our posts, you dumbass. We could stoop down to your level and write 20 word posts that have nothing to do with the discussion (like you have a tendency of doing) in some random off topic thread if we wanted to , and take 10X less time in doing so, if we wanted to simply get more posts.
NEWSFLASH: This debate, apparently, is over.
So think before you write whatever comes out of your head. These are fora after all...

Spoiler

It's "debate", not "depate".

[close]

[Skalli]

By the time of the American Civil War, the rifled musket had a significant advantage over the smooth bore. With it's round ball, the smooth bore had an effective range of up to seventy five yards, the advent of it's rifled cousin & the conical minie' ball, had increased effective range to three hundred yards (even more in the hands of a trained marksman). Quite a few details need to be brought to mind however when talking about the 'accuracy' of these weapons on the civil war battlefield.

First of all there was the 'charge' of powder in the cartridge, the bigger that charge of powder the more the weapon recoils, too small a charge and the range is drastically reduced, faulty percussion caps, a fixed bayonet, and under certain conditions the clouds of black powder smoke. Then there was the 'quality' of the men doing the firing, combat veteran regiments often did a lot more damage than much larger 'green' regiments, as reported time and again during the war, greener troops tended to fire too high.

Hardly any of these effects however, are useful in the clinical 'game' environment.

In my opinion, if they make the rifled weapons as accurate as they really were, then it's doubtful if you'd have a viable game unless large numbers of players are involved. On the other hand, making guns as inaccurate as they are in NW, would be a mistake...in my opinion.

Someone said earlier in this thread that it's 'how people play the game' that matters the most & I would agree with that, however.....If the Devs are going to include even a modicum of historical accuracy then a charge against a solid body of enemy troops with loaded weapons should result in very high casualties for the attacker. Some charges during the war undoubtedly did work, but when they worked it was rarely, if ever, against an enemy that was fully prepared for it. Charging an enemy during the Civil War, who were ready to meet that attack, with loaded weapons, was to invite disaster.

On the other hand, a well timed bayonet charge should still be possible. Against an enemy that has just fired a volley for example, or against an opponent who has suffered many casualties, or are on the move etc. But to 'move with the times' so to speak, to represent the advances in weaponry from NW, then the days of the 'rambo' charge should be well and truly over. In this game, the gun should rule the bayonet, no question about it.

[ClearlyInvsible]

It's possible in North and South, it'll probably be possible here.

[regwilliam]

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.

[KL4R1N0G4MPR0S]

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

[Skalli]

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.

This is probably the biggest problem faced, not just by this, but by any game of it's kind...numbers. As I'm sure you know, most 'shooters' rely on cover to keep the player alive, but apart from skirmishing, that is not really an option if players fight in line.

If the weapons are as accurate at the ranges they should be, then it's going to need regiments to be a lot bigger than twenty for it to be viable, & if they have an answer to this problem, then they're obviously not saying. One obvious system would be a mix of NPC's & players...but is that viable?

Added to this is that it's not just the accuracy of the small arms, artillery too had taken leaps forwards, game wise to include guns like Rodmans & Parrots just increases the casualties.

[ClearlyInvsible]

Well, we are talking about 500 man matches here. I doubt regiments are going to stay the same size.

[KL4R1N0G4MPR0S]

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 ) 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...

[Malkolm R. Lind]

I've got to agree with Onii, Boberton and Wismar here,

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.

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.

[KL4R1N0G4MPR0S]

I've got to agree with Onii, Boberton and Wismar here,

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.

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.

+1

[junedragon]

I've got to agree with Onii, Boberton and Wismar here,

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.

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.

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.

[ClearlyInvsible]

It isn't going to be a cross-map sniping fest. These rifled muskets aren't laser-rifles, you need to close in quickly.

To be frank, I doubt Linebattles are going to change much par more people are going to die in musket combat and that skirmishers will be more important.

[Marceaux]

I've got to agree with Onii, Boberton and Wismar here,

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.

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.

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.

Clearly, you contradict yourself and show you lack proper knowledge on combat of the era. You welcome a skirmish style gameplay yet the ACW was not fought by skirmishers. Nearly all units fought as tightly packed lines exchanging fire at close ranges. Melee charges were very common. If you don't want to fight in a line infantry formation and style than the ACW is not for you.

[ClearlyInvsible]

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.