A concern on Rifle accuracy changing game play

[Rejenorst]

I'll just post this snippet in here from the donators suggestion forum. I made this suggestion a while ago but I have no idea if it will be included or not. More information in this regard as to rifle accuracy and possible ways of balancing it would be appreciated.

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:

Spoiler

The 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.

*Should probably read: resulted in a lot of close up mid-range misses(?) because the bullets ended up flying over the heads of the enemy. Not 100% sure as I am not used to yards/imperial system.

[Duuring]

Why in the hell were massed line formations still in use after 1850 if the rifle was as accurate then as it is now?

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

I am unconvinced that this is the only reasoning. This seems quite the oversimplification.
Surely commanders would have no difficult time seeing that their men were being torn to pieces in lines. The high casualty rates speak of this.

Well I'm sorry you aren't convinced, but a fact remains a fact. Why do you think casualties were so high?

[Wismar]

Remember people, this isn't NW2. It is a new ACW game. There will probably be a NW mod for Bannerlord and if not that go and play L'aigle.

[Rallix]

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.

What I have disagreed with is that the formations served no purpose.
I described what that purpose is. I want you to explain how this is not the case, if you do in fact disagree with that.

[Salcos]

Nuh uh.

[gmanburger]

I see you all have made good points and have different opinions, but still you have to look at the fact that it wont be 150 player linebattles it will (hopefully) be up to 400-500 players even if the muskets are more accurate it will bring a new type of gameplay to this new game as many have said it wont be a NW 2.

[Earth Bby]

N&S = Skirmishing pretty much, RIP Line infantry formations. Let the Spreading begin.

I can see BCoF being awful if you want to stand in line and slow march towards another line. Arty sounds like it will blow holes of 10 men out of a lines and now from what i'm reading, people want Rifles to be super effective. I personally don't want a simulation of the Civil war, just a game where I can have FUN, and not watch my regiment blow up and have to wait for the other 500 people to die just to play again. If you want this game to outlive a month, then make Line Battling fun, as infantry is the bread and butter of this sort of game.

[ClearlyInvsible]

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.

[Earth Bby]

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.

People wont want to if they lose half their regiment before they get a volley off. If Line are to be used they must be stated in the rules like in NW, no FOL. I really enjoy melee and I hate to think that BCoF will be a massive Skirmish. Think about it this way, 50 man lines as standard sure to server size,  imagine how long it would take to shoot 50 people with muskets if they hide in houses / behind trees, not fun at all! I think that NW has got linebattling mastered. It's balanced and people can have fun, you can tell which regiments are veteran and which are green. Don't over complicate BCoF or it will surely die, there's a reason people still play NW even with buggy melee, shit Server lag & meh graphics etc.

Personally I have my fingers crossed for Banner lord to have a M&M mod of some sorts as I don't really enjoy the American civil, though I have donated to the team I feel they might overload the game from what I've been reading in the suggestions.

[ClearlyInvsible]

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.

[Earth Bby]

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.

How is it different you it's the same type of warfare? How can BCoF get away from NW if they both involve Line infantry, Skrimishers, cav & arty? It's like 50 years after Waterloo. I hope FSE sticks to their roots, after all, these bastards made M&M and look where we are now. 

[ClearlyInvsible]

I'll answer that question with another question, how different was World War I from World War II?

[William]

Don't know if this could be implemented, but maybe there could be a server option that could either:

1) Play with the stats of units, making them better or worse

2) Overall be able to affect the battle with options such as "Musket Accuracy -100%" which could be tweaked to lower, for example "Musket Accuracy-60%", or higher to make it more of a tactical game.

3) Be able to affect the weather or be able to affect how a battle is. For example, if the battle starts out with a nice sunny day it could change over time with visible clouds coming in, which begin to rain or bring heavy wind which could adversely affect your character. Example- Heavy Wind, harder to reload (you have debris flying in your face), and bullet trajectories being severely affected. Yet another being able actually script the server's weather, as in, you could put in your script to keep it nice and sunny, or maybe you could script it to be inclement and unforgiving for a more realistic, hardened approach. As to whether this could be implemented or not is something I am not very certain about but I really think these ideas/concepts would be really good in BCoF to help make the game both better and appeal to different audiences, whether it be Millander and his "guns should not be accurate at all, give em da bayonets boysss", or for people who want to have only charge when absolutely necessary to try and change the tide of a battle. With the ability to tweak factors and stats, I feel the game would be even more successful (hint hint, more money).

[ClearlyInvsible]

1 is most likely going to happen

2 would be an insult to any ACW historian who touches this game, best keep that to an Arcade mode

3 is implemented already.

[Earth Bby]

I'll answer that question with another question, how different was World War I from World War II?

Trench warfare in ww1

WW2 war more of a modern war, fighting in the streets etc.

Weapons, use of sub machine guns and more reliable arms.

Cavalrys was pretty much completely removed

Nazis - Naughty people

D-day - Invasion of France from the allies.

idiot

Such I class Japan and the Nuclear bombs?