Napoleonic Wars League [Season 1-4]

[Carolus.]

Yes. But with FiC it doesn't promote the melee fight. Just the shooting on short distance.

With FiC you atleast have a chance to break up camping deadlocks, without it it's just not worth it to advance on an enemy position, especially if its on a hilltop. But hey, loadsafun when LB's last for one hour and twenty minutes=)

FiC is the poor mans solution to a regiment who prefers shooting down their opponents. The only reason you want fire in charge is because you're a very good melee regiment and don't want to risk losing rounds to shooting. The host has decided to keep the firing in formation rule and everyone but the Nr24 seems to have accepted it by now. It's clear that there is not sufficient support to change it, so while I love to debate as much as the next guy there is nothing more to say 

Ofc we accept the rule of no FiC. Even though I might have a different opinion about it. If its a poor mans solution to want FiC to break up camping then its equally as poor to want it cuz your terrible at melee. Tbh I dont really care about FiC or no FiC. I just dont like camping. THAT is indeed a poor mans tactics. Passive hillcamping make me QQ cuz its destructive gameplay and terribly boring.. Thats what I would like to adress, so the question is how to get rid of camping rather than the issue of FiC.

As an example just look at the world of sports where its possible to get a warning if you are too passive.

[USE4life]

Problem is with FiC allowed there are no tactics. It's usually turns into both regiments chasing the back of the other until they're in a circle then charge. We've played against many regiment that like to keep their distance and won. The easiest way of course is to pick a map where hill camping is pretty much impossible. Or just accept that you're going to lose a few guys in transition and out melee the other team.

[Svensson]

You're right. FiC doesn't require much tactic but neither does no-FiC. Winning linebattles should be a team effort and passive hillcamping does not promote that. How on earth does hillcamping require a certain set of mastermind-tactical skills?

[Kalitorian]

You're right. FiC doesn't require much tactic but neither does no-FiC. Winning linebattles should be a team effort and passive hillcamping does not promote that. How on earth does hillcamping require a certain set of mastermind-tactical skills?

No-FiC doesnt promote hillcamping. I would say it`s the other way round: if you know that your enemy can simply FiC and rape you in melee, you are more likely to run for the highest hill and turn it into a fortress and try to shoot them from a save distance. But on the other hand if you know that your enemy doesn`t have a cheap way around using tactics you are more likely to engage him on an open field.

[Carolus.]

You're right. FiC doesn't require much tactic but neither does no-FiC. Winning linebattles should be a team effort and passive hillcamping does not promote that. How on earth does hillcamping require a certain set of mastermind-tactical skills?

No-FiC doesnt promote hillcamping. I would say it`s the other way round: if you know that your enemy can simply FiC and rape you in melee, you are more likely to run for the highest hill and turn it into a fortress and try to shoot them from a save distance. But on the other hand if you know that your enemy doesn`t have a cheap way around using tactics you are more likely to engage him on an open field.

We all know thats not the truth. It occurs whether there's FiC or no FiC. If you lose horribly in melee, you start camping instead. Taking potshots and hope for a random kill every now and then. Is that the kind of games we want to promote in the NWL? I'd like to believe it should be about teamwork, skills and tactics combined, not lucky potshots. Last but not least, it should be fun aswell, and personally I dont find camping that much fun but that might just be me.

Let's just try to find ways to get rid of camping or do you think its a fair tactic?

[USE4life]

You're right. FiC doesn't require much tactic but neither does no-FiC. Winning linebattles should be a team effort and passive hillcamping does not promote that. How on earth does hillcamping require a certain set of mastermind-tactical skills?

You act like hill-camping is a direct result of FiF. It happens in FiC as well. I don't think we've had a league match yet where the entirety of the battle was one team sitting on a hill waiting because it's easy to out-maneuver and hitting moving lines is in-effective anyway.

What FiF does bring is an actual advantage to holding a strategic position like a hill. Whereas with FiC charging up a hill means you can split up and shoot people at close range for maximum efficiency. So despite holding a hill and the strategic high ground you've been reduced to an even playing field.

[Kalitorian]

You're right. FiC doesn't require much tactic but neither does no-FiC. Winning linebattles should be a team effort and passive hillcamping does not promote that. How on earth does hillcamping require a certain set of mastermind-tactical skills?

No-FiC doesnt promote hillcamping. I would say it`s the other way round: if you know that your enemy can simply FiC and rape you in melee, you are more likely to run for the highest hill and turn it into a fortress and try to shoot them from a save distance. But on the other hand if you know that your enemy doesn`t have a cheap way around using tactics you are more likely to engage him on an open field.

We all know thats not the truth. It occurs whether there's FiC or no FiC. If you lose horribly in melee, you start camping instead. Taking potshots and hope for a random kill every now and then. Is that the kind of games we want to promote in the NWL? I'd like to believe it should be about teamwork, skills and tactics combined, not lucky potshots. Last but not least, it should be fun aswell, and personally I dont find camping that much fun but that might just be me.

Let's just try to find ways to get rid of camping or do you think its a fair tactic?

To put my theory even simpler: getting smashed in close combat -> keep your distance, doesnt matter if it`s FiC or FiF.

[JackieChan]

You're right. FiC doesn't require much tactic but neither does no-FiC. Winning linebattles should be a team effort and passive hillcamping does not promote that. How on earth does hillcamping require a certain set of mastermind-tactical skills?

No-FiC doesnt promote hillcamping. I would say it`s the other way round: if you know that your enemy can simply FiC and rape you in melee, you are more likely to run for the highest hill and turn it into a fortress and try to shoot them from a save distance. But on the other hand if you know that your enemy doesn`t have a cheap way around using tactics you are more likely to engage him on an open field.

We all know thats not the truth. It occurs whether there's FiC or no FiC. If you lose horribly in melee, you start camping instead. Taking potshots and hope for a random kill every now and then. Is that the kind of games we want to promote in the NWL? I'd like to believe it should be about teamwork, skills and tactics combined, not lucky potshots. Last but not least, it should be fun aswell, and personally I dont find camping that much fun but that might just be me.

Let's just try to find ways to get rid of camping or do you think its a fair tactic?

To put my theory even simpler: getting smashed in close combat -> keep your distance, doesnt matter if it`s FiC or FiF.

FiC just makes it easier to close the gap though, while FiF makes it very hard to get into the melee without taking too many losses. So yes, Firing in the Charge will make the opponent worse in melee try to keep the distance but the good meleers can close the distance more easily while taking fewer losses. Firing in Formation makes it near impossible to win for a good meleeing team if the other team just hill camps and shoots well. Once they do manage to get close, their numbers will have been decimated.

This is not me taking part in the discussion in which should be played but merely pointing out something.

[Kalitorian]

The best example for this is our match against the 6teGarde:
They simply camped at their spawn and tried to shoot us from very long range and managed to shoot 2-3 of our men each round.
We closed up on them, fired one good volley and then charged. The offset between our numbers and their numbers was 2-4 of 25 men once we got into melee.
It`s still possible to win if you`re good in melee.

[JackieChan]

The best example for this is our match against the 6teGarde:
They simply camped at their spawn and tried to shoot us from very long range and managed to shoot 2-3 of our men each round.
We closed up on them, fired one good volley and then charged. The offset between our numbers and their numbers was 2-4 of 25 men once we got into melee.
It`s still possible to win if you`re good in melee.

If they only shoot so few, yes. But an example for when it does not work is this: 91st playing pretty much any given regiment in the past. The opponents knowing the 91st to be good in melee just lign up on a hill close to their spawn and start firing on the 91st. Since the 91st is not known for shooting well at all, they'd either advance losing over 10 men before getting into melee or camp themselves in the hope of outcamping the opponent until they finally move off the the hill, which sometimes can take 5-10 minutes. Sure, then they'd win but who wants to do nothing and stare at their screen for 5-10 minutes?

Even after having got shot to pieces the 91st would still win the majority of the fights due to good melee but if the opposing regiment is as good as for instance the 92nd at shooting and at the same time knows how to melee, things will go less well.

[Hekko]

JackieChan largely speaks the truth about effects and causes for camping with no firinging in the charge.

The problem is, and will always be (given sufficient numbers in the lines) that it's too costly an affair to cover the last distance to melee to actually pull the battle back/make it into melee at all. With firing in the charge you give the enemy an incentive to stop reloading and spread out and counter charge rather than just shooting (strafing) fish in a barrel.

Hill camping is a bit awkward, but it's not inherently a problem to be honest. If you have the (valid) option of attacking them in melee it's simply a matter of going there and meleeing them. Contrary to popular belief terrain doesn't confer a tangible advantage to melee. Sure the different speed might throw you off, but it's the same for everyone, and if anything the slower speed will benefit the better person since they might live through one lucky stab and land two stabs themselves to kill the enemy.

Hillcamping turns into a problem when melee is not an option because a hill (crest and reverse slope too be exact) do confer an advantage to shooting. Which means that your option is to fight a literal uphill battle using shooting where all the odds are in the enemy's favour, or hillcamping yourself. Hillcamping yourself causes drawn out long and boring battles, and that is the problem. Not to mention that there is virtually no skill required to hillcamp, so luck will be the deciding factor of the battle.

Boring (patience based and) luck based battles seem hardly desirable for this type of event in my opinion.

Dressing the gaps does not necessarily need a rule either. A competent leader will know how to forcibly make the enemy dress the gaps, and as such it promotes more manouvering in shooty battles as well.

[JackieChan]

JackieChan largely speaks the truth about effects and causes for camping with no firinging in the charge.

The problem is, and will always be (given sufficient numbers in the lines) that it's too costly an affair to cover the last distance to melee to actually pull the battle back/make it into melee at all. With firing in the charge you give the enemy an incentive to stop reloading and spread out and counter charge rather than just shooting (strafing) fish in a barrel.

Hill camping is a bit awkward, but it's not inherently a problem to be honest. If you have the (valid) option of attacking them in melee it's simply a matter of going there and meleeing them. Contrary to popular belief terrain doesn't confer a tangible advantage to melee. Sure the different speed might throw you off, but it's the same for everyone, and if anything the slower speed will benefit the better person since they might live through one lucky stab and land two stabs themselves to kill the enemy.

Hillcamping turns into a problem when melee is not an option because a hill (crest and reverse slope too be exact) do confer an advantage to shooting. Which means that your option is to fight a literal uphill battle using shooting where all the odds are in the enemy's favour, or hillcamping yourself. Hillcamping yourself causes drawn out long and boring battles, and that is the problem. Not to mention that there is virtually no skill required to hillcamp, so luck will be the deciding factor of the battle.

Boring (patience based and) luck based battles seem hardly desirable for this type of event in my opinion.

Dressing the gaps does not necessarily need a rule either. A competent leader will know how to forcibly make the enemy dress the gaps, and as such it promotes more manouvering in shooty battles as well.

Well put! One thing that I found most annoying about hill camping though, which does pose a disadvantage for the attacking regiment, is that when the hill is somewhat large, it is tricky to calculate how long it will take to climb the hill and engage the enemy. Since the slopes are steep, the soldiers move slower and it takes longer even though the distance seems short. That gives the enemy more time to get in pointblank shots. Dodging is also more difficult due to slower moving units.

[Carolus.]

You're right. FiC doesn't require much tactic but neither does no-FiC. Winning linebattles should be a team effort and passive hillcamping does not promote that. How on earth does hillcamping require a certain set of mastermind-tactical skills?

No-FiC doesnt promote hillcamping. I would say it`s the other way round: if you know that your enemy can simply FiC and rape you in melee, you are more likely to run for the highest hill and turn it into a fortress and try to shoot them from a save distance. But on the other hand if you know that your enemy doesn`t have a cheap way around using tactics you are more likely to engage him on an open field.

We all know thats not the truth. It occurs whether there's FiC or no FiC. If you lose horribly in melee, you start camping instead. Taking potshots and hope for a random kill every now and then. Is that the kind of games we want to promote in the NWL? I'd like to believe it should be about teamwork, skills and tactics combined, not lucky potshots. Last but not least, it should be fun aswell, and personally I dont find camping that much fun but that might just be me.

Let's just try to find ways to get rid of camping or do you think its a fair tactic?

To put my theory even simpler: getting smashed in close combat -> keep your distance, doesnt matter if it`s FiC or FiF.

Depends on how you keep the distance, if you're passive on a hill you should get a warning or something. Make up a rule to get rid of the camping for the love of god.

[Kalitorian]

I think the rules are fine the way they`re now. Most of the other regiments and Bever also think that those rules are good and justified, so nothings going to change.

[McPero]

Well no FiC is important. Historicaly lines didnt fire in charge or thy stayed in formation. Same with camping, camping is completly normal and smart historicaly. You have option to choose map for 5 rounds and enemy for same. So if enemy sets camping map you set it too.