Weapons

[Revan]

With Respect.


I really don't have much to rant about since it's an early access. However, I got a few questions on weapons diversity and unit's ability to use them.

First thing I'd like to ask this. Why Sharps rifles are only available for sharpshooters? That's really not fair. I understand that they indeed were predominantly used by sharpshooters, but that doesn't mean it can't be used by infantry. I mean, come on. You made Henry and Spencer repeating rifles, even Colt revolver rifle available for line infantry, but sharps breech loader is no good? How come? You can equip your army with bloody machine guns, but not single shot breech loaders?

Come on. You got a ton of rifled muskets available for infantry, 2 repeaters, a revolver rifle and not a single breech loader, even though there were abundance of designs? Not many were produced, I know it, though a lot of sharps were, but you got a lot of not mass produced rifles in the game already. And it's cool - I'm all for weaponry diversity. You already made your arsenal unique among the civil war games. But why didn't you put in there a single breech loader for the infantry? Not even Sharps, which already exists! You just had to make it available for Infantry!

By the way. What's with the small rate of fire of Sharps Rifle? 45? A breech loader? and Springfield 1863 got 57? Bloody 57? A muzzle loader? Bull. Shit. Sorry, but it is. I'm not even going to comment on Whitworth Rate of fire... 43? What is wrong with you people? Whitworth? Rifle that was loaded with special ammo and needed a hammer to push the bullet inside? 2 points behind a breech loader? Seriously guys. Get real.

There are many more inaccuracies here and there, I don't have the mood to list them all, there are people that know this better than me and can tell all the details. One more thing that gets straight against all logic and reason: Cavalry weapons. WTF guys. Come on. You do know, that just because they carried their carbines, they didn't drop sabers, do you? I mean, seriously guys. What got into your head? Why would they choose between revolver with saber and carbine? Why on earth? They usually carried carbines and swords, many had revolvers as well! As a matter of fact, top tier equipment should be combined arms - pistols or revolvers and carbines, so they could be multi functional! This is bloody ridiculous guys. 2 Types of cavalry, yeah? Melee and Long Range? Bull. Crap. And you know it.

And what's even more disturbing, is that it's not even a gameplay issue! Why can't you have different types of cavalry that has decent melee capabilities? Some could have better close range arms with good rate of fire, some could have carbines for longer range, but both should have swords and sabers! Come on! How would it break gameplay? How on earth would it make any difference, besides of I could stop worrying that my carbine cavalry gets charged by enemy cavalry with pistols and sabers and gets utterly slaughtered in seconds, because for some reason they can't defend them self in close combat at all! At all! They did carry melee weapons, they shouldn't be annihilated so fast! That's why they were Cavalry for god's sake!

If you wanted to make a mounted infantry class - you should've made it a separate class! For example, they could have their own set of weapons - carbines and rifles - first could use them both mounted and on foot - second would need to dismount to shoot! God, that's so easy! And since they would be naturally vulnerable to cavalry, because they are not supposed to carry swords, they can get bigger max numbers per brigade - like around 1000 vs 750. That seems logical to me.

Cavalry with no melee weapons. Give me a bloody break.

And by the way, it's for the future, but lances and different sword types would be nice too. It's strange to command Rush's Lancers armed with pistols and sabers. But it's early access, I get it, no big deal.

However I got to say, it's strange to see that you can arm your cavalry with revolver carbines, but not revolvers them self, not even speaking about that there is only colt and Remington. I advice you create a mixed weaponry class for cavalry, since it was common. Low tier, Medium tier (maybe 2 of them) and High tier. Low tier would have crappy pistols of different types and some revolvers, medium would have mixed revolvers of medium\high quality (that's why I said 2 medium types) and high tier for good mixed revolver\revolver rifles. The same could be applied to mixed revolver\carbine weaponry, though as I said that's supposed to be Top tier. And add some more variety in revolvers as well - it's not enough. And LeMat as top? Come on. And again, it looks like revolver carbine for some reason. Bizarre.



As for artillery... Well that's different story. Whitworth breech loader cannon with same rate of fire as 10pdr parrot muzzle loader? That's not funny at all guys. I'd like to see even more new guns here, and some stats needs to be fixed, I think, but it's for the future. I think a siege artillery as a separate class would be nice. Mmm.. 30pdr Parrots.

There is a lot to be done guys, and what is done already is magnificent, you did a great job. But that's a start, you need to fix some stuff, add more, and it will be perfect, hope you answer my questions and analyze my propositions, I'd like to hear what you think about it.


Thanks a lot.

Deep respect.

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Your feedback is punctuated with profanity; and directly insult the intelligence of -- and/or the game implementations put in place by -- the devs. But you don't see anything offensive. 

If someone disagrees with your point, they didn't read your wall of text closely enough. 

And, for the crowning touch, you compliment yourself and your genius, then ask the devs to give you a job. 

Wow. 

[thomas aagaard]

Nothing about your text is respectful.

[jekct1212]

Confederate Calvary under Forest carried only shotguns of carbines, only his personal guards carried sabers, towards the end of the war both sides Calvary ceased carrying sabers in favor of carbines because it's not that easy to run when dismounted with a saber hanging from your hip. Also the age of the magnificent Calgary charge ended at Waterloo, any charge like that during the civil war would be slaughter. In reply to your sharps rant, there were regiments in the union army that carried colt revolving rifles and Henry's, the Bucktails of Gettysburg fame carried sharps rifles, not carbines, and the main unit to carry sharps rifles were the US sharpshooters. Also if you read, you'll find that confederates, who used the whitworth, ditched the hexagonal bullets in favor of standard miniès because you can't really import special bullets for i high cost when your coast is blockaded. One rebel Calvary regiment carried lances, used them once, got slaughtered, then proceeded to use them for firewood. Also melee in the civil war didn't happen that much, that's why there are so many casualties, both sides would stand and blaze away at each other hours. 

The end. 

PS. In reply to the two types of Calvary you say "long range", ever hear of the mounted rifles and the mounted infantry?

 

Edited December 3, 2016 by jekct1212

[jekct1212]

And the 30lb. Parrot siege gun suggestion, I personally don't think it would be very helpful because it didn't help the union much when that's tried it

"The 30 pdr. Parrott saw service as early as the First Battle of Manassas. A Union 30 pdr. Parrott with Company G, 1st U.S. Artillery fired the opening shot of the battle. The gun was given the nickname "Long Tom" by it's loving crew. Due to the difficulties of moving such a large gun quickly, the gun position was overrun by Confederates. The gun served the South for the remainder of it's lifetime."

[jekct1212]

I agree that Heavy artillery units like the Connecticut one from Cold Harbor (I think it was Connecticut) and it would be cool to be able to tell your men when to fix bayonets, tho I can see it being a little micro managing, and I apologize for sounding condescending in that last post.

[Revan]

8 hours ago, jekct1212 said:

I agree that Heavy artillery units like the Connecticut one from Cold Harbor (I think it was Connecticut) and it would be cool to be able to tell your men when to fix bayonets, tho I can see it being a little micro managing, and I apologize for sounding condescending in that last post.

It's okay, I didn't even thought it was actually condescending at all - maybe a bit unbased, since it seems you didn't read my article properly, but nothing criminal.

I wonder who'd down vote my post though. Was I harsh? I tried to be a bit more pleasant in my last comment, did I fail?

-2?  Really?

Edited December 5, 2016 by Revan

[MikeK]

This is not to contradict anyone, but to add some more pre-magazine rifle background. 

1. Edged weapons are primarily psychological in effect, more so than firearms which also have a long-distance physical effect. Edged weapons take an excessive amount of training as compared to firearms, but were and remain important because of the psychological boost to willingness to close they give to friendlies (since the weapons are useless physically unless they close) and the corollary negative impact on the enemy if they are convinced that their adversaries are serious about coming into close combat. The object is to unsettle and rout the enemy without hand-to-hand combat by overpowering their will to resist and winning the moral battle. Throwing away scabbards and the sequences of drill evolutions and commands in a charge similarly reinforce this, including fixing bayonets, brandishing swords, cohesive shouts, etc. as does advancing with bayonets on empty muskets - this reduces the chance of troops stopping to shoot and the attack bogging down.  The Dreyse needle gun received early criticism on the basis that troops with breech-loaders would tend to go to ground and waste their ammo shooting at the enemy from that position, while with a rifled musket they would have to remain erect in formation and would more readily advance. 

2. The dynamics of short-range firearms such as shotguns and revolvers work in similar ways in providing incentive for attackers to close and increasing the defender's fear of attackers able to engage in rapid fire doing so while the defender must reload each shot.  

3. It takes a long time to be effective with melee weapons. Edged weapons are primarily a psychological boost and psychological weapon , not a physical one, useful in the battle of morale between two opposing sides in for persuading the enemy that you will close with them (and your own troops that they need to close for their own safety) and thereby inducing them to retreat. Throwing away scabbards and bayonet assaults with with empty muskets are just some of the techniques to unsettle the enemy and make him run away. 

4. Charging with revolvers serves much the same psychological role as swords or bayonets as you need to get in close to use them and they can be used multiple times to effect against an enemy with a one-shot rifle.  

5. A vital drawback of breech loaders and magazine firearms foreseen by professionals was escalating ammunition consumption in general, and another one encouragement of the tendency of troops to take cover to develop a static fire, bogging down maneuver even more.

6. Fire control was a major priority to maintain concealment and conserve fire for a decisive tactical effect. Unnerved troops could render themselves ineffective by quickly shooting off their ammo when engaged. Rapid fire does address anxiety temporarily, until the ammo is exhausted and being effectively disarmed induces panic.

7. Controlled fire and steady well-timed volleys have a good cohesive and psychological effect on the troops and calm fire displays troop discipline to the enemy to weaken their determination to hold their position.  

8. Cavalry's role in the age of rifles is a whole different matter, yet the psychological considerations are similar but with different considerations of space and time - the speed of attack, for one, energizing and relieving the tension of the attacker while putting the defender under greater pressure which could lead to firing too early as well as the ideal of an innocent retrograde adjustment being seen and triggering a rout. 

 

[Revan]

On 10/12/2016 at 5:52 AM, MikeK said:

This is not to contradict anyone, but to add some more pre-magazine rifle background. 

1. Edged weapons are primarily psychological in effect, more so than firearms which also have a long-distance physical effect. Edged weapons take an excessive amount of training as compared to firearms, but were and remain important because of the psychological boost to willingness to close they give to friendlies (since the weapons are useless physically unless they close) and the corollary negative impact on the enemy if they are convinced that their adversaries are serious about coming into close combat. The object is to unsettle and rout the enemy without hand-to-hand combat by overpowering their will to resist and winning the moral battle. Throwing away scabbards and the sequences of drill evolutions and commands in a charge similarly reinforce this, including fixing bayonets, brandishing swords, cohesive shouts, etc. as does advancing with bayonets on empty muskets - this reduces the chance of troops stopping to shoot and the attack bogging down.  The Dreyse needle gun received early criticism on the basis that troops with breech-loaders would tend to go to ground and waste their ammo shooting at the enemy from that position, while with a rifled musket they would have to remain erect in formation and would more readily advance. 

2. The dynamics of short-range firearms such as shotguns and revolvers work in similar ways in providing incentive for attackers to close and increasing the defender's fear of attackers able to engage in rapid fire doing so while the defender must reload each shot.  

3. It takes a long time to be effective with melee weapons. Edged weapons are primarily a psychological boost and psychological weapon , not a physical one, useful in the battle of morale between two opposing sides in for persuading the enemy that you will close with them (and your own troops that they need to close for their own safety) and thereby inducing them to retreat. Throwing away scabbards and bayonet assaults with with empty muskets are just some of the techniques to unsettle the enemy and make him run away. 

4. Charging with revolvers serves much the same psychological role as swords or bayonets as you need to get in close to use them and they can be used multiple times to effect against an enemy with a one-shot rifle.  

5. A vital drawback of breech loaders and magazine firearms foreseen by professionals was escalating ammunition consumption in general, and another one encouragement of the tendency of troops to take cover to develop a static fire, bogging down maneuver even more.

6. Fire control was a major priority to maintain concealment and conserve fire for a decisive tactical effect. Unnerved troops could render themselves ineffective by quickly shooting off their ammo when engaged. Rapid fire does address anxiety temporarily, until the ammo is exhausted and being effectively disarmed induces panic.

7. Controlled fire and steady well-timed volleys have a good cohesive and psychological effect on the troops and calm fire displays troop discipline to the enemy to weaken their determination to hold their position.  

8. Cavalry's role in the age of rifles is a whole different matter, yet the psychological considerations are similar but with different considerations of space and time - the speed of attack, for one, energizing and relieving the tension of the attacker while putting the defender under greater pressure which could lead to firing too early as well as the ideal of an innocent retrograde adjustment being seen and triggering a rout. 

 

All fair points. There are some details I'd comment on later, but mostly - very fair and clear points, I can't say much against them.

However, I'm not really sure what was the point of your points. If you know what I mean.

It's not that relevant to what I was talking about, rather then the background for it, and my main point was that weapons in the game are a little misrepresented, Your text was mostly about the realities of close combat and evolution of it. I happen to agree, mostly with what you said, but that's not exactly relevant to the game, or it's problems. Well, not much.

I'd be much obliged if you could make yourself clear on this.

[Revan]

On 12/12/2016 at 11:46 AM, Andre Bolkonsky said:

Your feedback is punctuated with profanity; and directly insult the intelligence of -- and/or the game implementations put in place by -- the devs. But you don't see anything offensive. 

If someone disagrees with your point, they didn't read your wall of text closely enough. 

And, for the crowning touch, you compliment yourself and your genius, then ask the devs to give you a job. 

Wow. 

Dude.

Really. If it's to hard for you to understand obvious jokes, I probably can't help you.

I praised Devs throughout my post several times, and didn't a single time said anything against them personally. I question their decisions - and even though I do so with some profanity and humor, I never questioned their motivation or devotion, since I love the game.

But you yourself seem to be too thick for it, and I'm sorry for you.


Neither can you understand or properly interpret my polemic with jekct1212

Who you for some reason call "someone who disagrees with me", not even bothering to understand what was the problem. I politely responded to his points, pointing out precisely  where he didn't read my text properly. And he asked to excuse him for his condescending tone, even though I myself took no offense. Properly because I'm not as thick and aggressive as you are. Instead you write a spiteful unobservant comment based on your presumption.

Well, you clearly showed that you severely lack any sense humor.

I understand, that part of the fault lies with me, obviously, for writing book of a text in each point. And making it that informal, I tried to be genuine. I tried to talk on every point, and include as many details as possible. That was probably a bad decision, I should've probably be more laconic. However, this doesn't excuse  misinterpretation of my words.

I hope Devs aren't as thick as you, that would be a shame.

Edited December 13, 2016 by Revan

[Revan]

On 03/12/2016 at 1:15 AM, thomas aagaard said:

Nothing about your text is respectful.

I do not agree. It was a bit ranty, yes, but nothing about it was offensive, or at least not intended. I said many times that it's early access and the game is magnificent as a whole anyway. Those are just some annoying details, many of them - quite stupid for my taste, but I don't blame the Devs - nobody is secure of mistakes, especially so early in development. I just point them out - perhaps emotionally, but that's not forbidden here, and honestly, I tried to be as sincere as possible. I think it's good for sincerity sake alone.

 

 

On 03/12/2016 at 4:13 AM, jekct1212 said:

Confederate Calvary under Forest carried only shotguns of carbines, only his personal guards carried sabers, towards the end of the war both sides Calvary ceased carrying sabers in favor of carbines because it's not that easy to run when dismounted with a saber hanging from your hip. Also the age of the magnificent Calgary charge ended at Waterloo, any charge like that during the civil war would be slaughter. In reply to your sharps rant, there were regiments in the union army that carried colt revolving rifles and Henry's, the Bucktails of Gettysburg fame carried sharps rifles, not carbines, and the main unit to carry sharps rifles were the US sharpshooters. Also if you read, you'll find that confederates, who used the whitworth, ditched the hexagonal bullets in favor of standard miniès because you can't really import special bullets for i high cost when your coast is blockaded. One rebel Calvary regiment carried lances, used them once, got slaughtered, then proceeded to use them for firewood. Also melee in the civil war didn't happen that much, that's why there are so many casualties, both sides would stand and blaze away at each other hours. 

The end. 

PS. In reply to the two types of Calvary you say "long range", ever hear of the mounted rifles and the mounted infantry?

 

Hmm.. Where to begin with. You didn't read my whole article, or weren't attentive enough.

First of all. I wasn't talking about specific units - they are to be made as close as possible, I got nothing against that. I actually think that Equipment - especially for cavalry should be much more diverse. And mixed as well. Shotguns and revolvers, Shotguns and sabres, carbines and sabres. All kinds. Myself, I'd rather have an option to have sabres equipped or not as a separate option - for cavalry alone. It should be like a "attach bayonet" button - that sadly, doesn't exist in game. It would be applied in camp. Though it would give some problems with buying more quality swords.

But on the other hand - forget  what I said. Cavalry should simply have 2 equipment slots - for ranged and melee weapons. Separate. Then it would be perfect. Revolvers, Shotguns and carbines (or mixed!) - in one slot, sabres, swords, lances, sabres and lances mixed in the other slot.

That would be perfect.


God, I'm genius. Want to give me a job, Devs?



However.

On 03/12/2016 at 4:13 AM, jekct1212 said:

towards the end of the war

Are the Key words. End of the War. This game is about the whole war, and what's even more funny - late war isn't even available in early access yet - it's still being worked on.

And even then. Usually, cavalry, even in the late war, didn't drop the sabers. They could take it off the hip and place them on the saddle, or go on a raid without them, or leave it in the camp for a time, but drop completely? Cavalry? Maybe specific units, but mainstream cavalry? No. God, they even kept them in Indian wars, are you kidding me? And yes, cavalry and mounted infantry are different. Cavalry was supposed to always have melee capability - even if they were quite often used as dismounted skirmishers or infantry.

And no, Cavalry charges didn't stop at Waterloo. At all. Direct cavalry charges were becoming unpopular after Napoleonic wars, but nobody dropped them completely. Even after Light Brigade catastrophe they didn't abandon it. Have you ever heard of Franco Prussian war, and how cavalry was used there? Ever heard of Von Bredow's Death Ride in battle of Mars -La-Tour? I give you a hint - it was a successful cavalry charge. Very successful heavy cavalry charge that decimated the french, even though it cost 50% of casualties for Prussians, though it was common for them to suffer heavy casualties in the war and still win battles against french that suffered less.

God cavalry was used in goddamn WW1 (and melee charges happened there!) and even WW2! Soviet Cavalry divisions carried sabres all the time until 1945! It was abandoned with time, but it was used! They had 41 cavalry divisions with sabers at some point! They were generally used poorly and without much success, but that's not the point.

Cavalry charges didn't die at all at that time. Maybe they should've, that's different point. But they didn't as a concept.

As a matter of fact, US civil war was a major revival of Cavalry tactic, after it's decline of early XIX century, that saw the rise of the "queen of the fields" - infantry. After US civil war and Franco-Prussian war, cavalry has again become important part of the armies all over the world, because people started to understand - that light Brigade charge was idiocy not because it was cavalry charge, but because it was idiocy, it could've been infantry charge too and it would fail anyway, because they were surrounded by guns on all sides and were utterly outnumbered. What's funny is that they actually captured the guns, protected by much stronger Russian force, and then just retreated back, even though they completed their objective... in a way... What i mean, is that after those wars, Cavalry became popular again, because people started to understand, that if used properly - it was good. And if not - it is a disaster as much as any other stupid decison. Farnsworth's charge at Gettysburg is best example.

But I Digress. My main point is that current cavalry equipment choice between the revolver\pistol with sabre and carbine is bullshit, I stated my point before, I hate to repeat myself all the time. God, at Gettysburg Buford had carbines and sabers, for fuck's sake. They didn't charge on horseback, but they had the ability to do it. Ability. It would've been stupid under their circumstances, but they could do it. And the player should have the ability to do it too. Because player should have opportunity to make mistakes and learn on his own. That's the idea of this game, no?

And yes, US civil war saw a lot of cavalry charges. And cavalry armed with carbines charging with swords wasn't uncommon at all. Some successful. some not. Doesn't matter. They could, and they did. A lot. For realism's sake, we should be able to do so as well.



Thanks a lot for reminding me of Bucktails and that they carried sharps, i forgot about it, And yes, if you'd read my article correctly, you'd see that I know about troops armed with repeaters IRL, that;s why I'm all for repeaters for infantry in this game. If I recall correctly, one union regiment that had colt revolving rifles was surrounded and captured because they ran out of ammo, though they inflicted heavy casualties on enemy. And there was a union unit that bought Henry's for them self - whole regiment. I'm not sure, but i think they had a good battle record. And Berdan Sharpshooters had colt revolver rifles in the beginning, but they dropped it because they were bad for their role - shitty accuracy and unreliable. Again - that's why I'm all for it! That was a good idea on Dev's part, which I honestly didn't expect and and I am very happy about. What I say is bullshit - that sharps can't be used in this way. For the reason that is beyond me. And Bucktails are the best example, thank you again.

Though with those stupid stats, Sharps are useless for infantry anyway.

And I mentioned Berdan Sharpshooters (and not only them) already, why talking about them? In case you didn't know - sharpshooters are a different class. They already got sharps.

About Whitworth - I never heard about that, but it's quite possible. Thanks for mentioning that, I'll look it up. I hope this ammo problem could be done by Devs in some way, so that proper ammo would give more stats but would cost a lot. It'd be really nice, though I doubt they'd make it. It doesn't really matter - Whitworth is of secondary importance to my point. Still too fast compared to sharps. Whitworth - 43, Sharps 45? Come on, you know it's stupid.

Wait. Wait Wait Wait. Different Ammo types? That would cost differently, and had different stats, from damage to range? It could be used for all guys. All! Think - different bullet and powder quality did exist! If I remember correctly, Sharpshooters would even use more powder for their shots sometimes! Now that I think about it - it's a great idea! More ammo for less money to compensate poor funds, or better quality for more money if you receive a lot of support! That would be an awesome feature!

Devs. Still don't want to hire me?


Lances are a different point, what I mean is that they were used, and there were units that carried them. That lancers charge you mentioned - I heard about it, they had some weird shaped blades on their lances, I recall, not? :D. Rush's Lancers had lances too. Effective or not - doesn't matter. Should be available to equip. In future of course. Some day. That's completely secondary to finishing main game, I understand.


I know melee didn't happen that much IRL. The problem is - it happens a lot in the game. A lot. You see my point?

 

On 03/12/2016 at 4:13 AM, jekct1212 said:

PS. In reply to the two types of Calvary you say "long range", ever hear of the mounted rifles and the mounted infantry?

If you'd' read my article properly, you'd learn, that I know about them. That's why i think, such units should to be a different class entirely. Completely different units, completely different tactics and training. Different equipment (on explaining what types of equipment should be present in the game I wasted half of the whole first article). Different everything besides the horses themselves though even them were actually different types for cavalry, and were used and treated differently too! God, I even suggested what those units would look like, I mean, come on man, read carefully!

I got so many Ideas...


 

 

On 03/12/2016 at 4:46 AM, jekct1212 said:

And the 30lb. Parrot siege gun suggestion, I personally don't think it would be very helpful because it didn't help the union much when that's tried it

"The 30 pdr. Parrott saw service as early as the First Battle of Manassas. A Union 30 pdr. Parrott with Company G, 1st U.S. Artillery fired the opening shot of the battle. The gun was given the nickname "Long Tom" by it's loving crew. Due to the difficulties of moving such a large gun quickly, the gun position was overrun by Confederates. The gun served the South for the remainder of it's lifetime."

I see your point, but the thing is - everything is helpful when used properly. No one is secured of what you said, that's war for you - doesn't discredit the guns at all. Union used it successfully at Gettysburg - that I know for sure, and probably other battles as well, I 'd have too look it up. As I said, maybe those guns should probably be applied to a different class - siege artillery. I'm not sure. I wonder if heavy artillery battalions could be used as infantry, as it happened IRL :D. Though arty troops already can become a 600-men units, so... It sure would be lovely to have different heavy arty guns available. If not for recruiting, (for balance of the game, though it's a shame!) but  for missions - definitely. 100-300 pdr parrots and columbiads would be lovely to have, even for just a single mission as temporal unit. In battles that actually had them IRL of course. Unless they'd become recruitable, it would be fantastic. They of course would be very slow - but as fixed arty they'd be great.

But again, that's up to Devs - just my ideas.

Edited December 5, 2016 by Revan
Few spelling mistakes and small corrections