A concern on Rifle accuracy changing game play

[regwilliam]

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.. 

Well also at the first battle of Manassas Both army's where really Green and most likely pointed the gun to high up when they shot or got scared and just kept reloading or Just plain run away after a few of there guys getting shot.

[TheBoberton]

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.. 

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.

[The Norseman]

I agree. Accuracy should be the same, even though I was hoping for worse.

[Rallix]

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.. 

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.

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.

When you have a man clearly in your sights, it will take generally 1-10 shots to kill him.
If you know a man's location, but cannot see him, 10-100 should be enough to pierce his cover/concealment.
If you have no clue where he is, no amount of shooting can make his death certain.

All other ammunition expenditure is practice shots.
And I love how so many of you think that the majority of civil war soldiers received not even a single day of basic training.
Cause that's all it takes for an instructor to tell you that bullets drop, and let you practice.

[Josy_Wales]

if shooting is going to be shit, then it will be random if you hit or not, and in my opinion that sucks. I really like melee but it should not be like you can't practice to get good at shooting only in melee. I would like the rifle to be around as accurate as they was, and make the wind, surroundings and suppression from other regiments make it difficult to hit, and then you can practice to get good at shooting and melee and still have balance.

I don't know if your talking about over all accuracy, but keep in mind there is most likely going to be snipers n the game, is it not

[ClearlyInvsible]

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?

[Rallix]

So far this whole thread seems to me to be a bunch of people afraid of changing the metagame.
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.
Now 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.

[ClearlyInvsible]

You aren't getting up after that

WARNING: Very bloody

[close]

Or that

[Fallout]

So far this whole thread seems to me to be a bunch of people afraid of changing the metagame.
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.

Spoiler

Now 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]

[/spoiler]
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.  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. 

[Josy_Wales]

If suppression is going to be added it is going to encourage people to stay together and make combined fire, easy as that.

And another thing, if accuracy is going to be bad, a good melee regiment is going to crush any other regiment not as good in melee, and the strategy is gone from the game. then its smarter to just fight with sticks with bayonets on.
There is no need for bad accuracy, just make it challenging to get good at it. I hate when things get random in game, so just something is skill and others are luck.

I think a rifle shoot should one hit almost regardless where you hit, and same with melee weapons, pistols could be handled a bit different.

[Completenoob]

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.

Not as much an exaggeration but there is no further context or details or general conditions explained why something is influenced. In same vein diarrhea kills more people on Earth than HIV, SARS, and all the super media hyped diseases combined yet in most developed countries it sounds utterly ridiculous, yet when you account how many humans there are on Earth and how many places still have substandard hygiene standards (and some other contributing factors) go figure.

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?

Which is not much different from the RNG shooting in NW to begin with. You can take all day long to aim and fire 50+ shots total against well-presented targets not behind cover and all that from distance which you could consistently score hits in real life with old matchlock musket to 50x50cm target. Or that rifles in NW are more inconsistent with landing shots past certain distance than muskets because RNG factor and that the engine cannot model certain accuracy things properly to begin with. I would gladly take over even mildly exaggerated misfire chance if it means the actual shooting process is not under RNG and vague justification "that's how muskets were" even when all it takes is to use one and it becomes obvious you can hit past 20 yards without missing ten times in a row with standard musket. Not unless you use substandard powder and grossly undersized bullets to begin with, or you have absolutely no concept of aiming to begin with.

Of course we could start arguing if NW is really that realistic to begin with, but I would say it leans more towards the realistic end all things considered, and going further with the aiming example since we know most people were not trained to fire aimed shots back in the day we could turn musketry much worse with clear justification, but in the end it is simply taking step further in the RNG lottery fest. Of course, that is ignoring troop cohesion and formation warfare's own realities in real life which either enforces or induces the issue to begin with but simply looking at firearm functionality itself and how it behaves in gameplay context.

Edit: I might as well clarify that what direction FSE wishes to take BCoF is entirely up to them whether it turns into Call of Blackpowder or even lightweight simulation or even Quake dressed in ACW skins (which would be kind of awesome in my humble and discarded opinion) and as much as I personally lean more towards simulation junkie as far as preferences go, I do not believe in the excuse that realism always hinders gameplay. Yes, that can happen, but even perfectly excellent gameplay with no hint of realism can be ruined by design decisions whether is it due poor balance or some other reasons. Good gameplay is a start, but good realistic gameplay is not some insurmountable fence to vault over either by any means.

[Rallix]

Spoiler

[close]

You aren't getting up after that

WARNING: Very bloody

[close]

Or that

The first one is what happens when you get kneecapped by a minie ball, yes.
I couldn't find the source for the second one, so I'm going assume it's a carcass that was test fired on.

Getting hit by one of these is roughly the same as being hit by a shotgun slug. An ounce of lead flying around or under 500m/s.
Mind you, in both these cases the projectile has struck bone. Hitting bone causes any bullet to fragment and create a large, nasty wound, even small calibers.
All that energy suddenly gets stopped, unlike when it passes through flesh. (A bullet traveling through tissue tends to slow down steadily by comparison.)

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. 

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. 

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.

One must find a balance between a player's ability to solo enemies in melee, and how much they must rely on team-mates.
I think Vikingr went a little bit too far in one direction, while NW is a bit too far in the other.

I like using my comparatively elite melee ability against multiple opponents in NW, but I think it would be better for the gameplay of the many, if formations were good counters to melee rambos. The slower the footwork, the more useful static formations become. If I can't bring my bayonet up to a line, stab, and then retreat before being impaled by three people, formations are effective.

[Nikvonbond]

As many people mentioned: Shooting is not fun in NW, because it's random as hell

Solving the problem in this game can be done by adding two small but vital changes

When you aimning down the sight you will get lower and "darker" field of view, like i will demonstrate with these to Screenshots

Spoiler

[close]

Here we have Henrys rifle and it's far more accurate than muskets

But when i am down the sight, the FOV will be much lower and aimning therefore will be much harder even at closer distance

Spoiler

[close]

Like that


Another thing you should add, is scope sway. In the end of the day, most infantry men during the war was militia and conscrits. So to simulate the lack of training, you add a scope sway, which you have to counterballance.

P.S Before you way "Still easy to shoot down a sharge with 1 volley because of accuracy", try Fist full of frags and see how much luck you get with thouse weapons

Just my two cents (and sorry for my english, it's my 3'rd launguage)

[Audiate]

...what game is that?

[Ry1459]

...what game is that?

I believe it is Fist Full of Frags which is free to play on Steam right now I think.