Shooting at units in close combat

[Galverizer]

I find it very illogical that it's possible to shoot at enemies in close combat. The game would be more fun if this wasn't possible. Wouldn't it be a 50% chance you hit your own?

[The Soldier]

There is friendly fire.  Next time you have your own troops put a volley into the backs of a melee ball, watch the casualty rate for your men before, during, and after.  The rate at which you're losing men will rose considerably for the duration of the volley.  More often than not, this is what causes your men to Rout in melee.

[sonnypemberton]

I just noticed this yesterday - friendly fire is a thing. I had melee Calvary attacking enemy units backed up with some mounted skirmishers and noticed that every time I fired, my melee took several hits. Is this a new addition? I hadn't noticed FF before...

[The Soldier]

7 minutes ago, sonnypemberton said:

I just noticed this yesterday - friendly fire is a thing. I had melee Calvary attacking enemy units backed up with some mounted skirmishers and noticed that every time I fired, my melee took several hits. Is this a new addition? I hadn't noticed FF before...

It's probably been there for a while now.  Just no one really noticed.

[Wandering1]

I wouldn't necessarily call it friendly fire, per se, it is simply incidental fire. Incidental fire does not discriminate.

[A. P. Hill]

Friendly fire is never friendly.

[The Soldier]

1 hour ago, A. P. Hill said:

Friendly fire is never friendly.

The camp fire certainly feels friendly.

[Wandering1]

31 minutes ago, The Soldier said:

The camp fire certainly feels friendly.

Until someone overcooks their marshmellows, or weiners.

[Wright29]

the firing into the melee cluster**** is to counter the fact that melee charges are incredibly potent for both the player and the AI. By that I mean that cover is overemphasized, so charging an enemy en masse is often far easier than trying to dislodge them by firing in the open. 

So it goes: cover needs to be powerful to make certain ground worth defending-> attacking cover is difficult, so charging is better-> charging exploits are annoying, so firing into melee is acceptable despite being ahistorical->friendly fire is a thing to balance this (though nowhere close to as damaging as it is to the enemy). 

As you can see, there are a lot of things to consider when one comments on how one element in this chain is unfair. 

[jekct1212]

On 4/15/2017 at 5:50 PM, Wandering1 said:

Until someone overcooks their marshmellows, or weiners.

Stop this madness!!!!

[JaM]

If I recall correctly, close combat during Civil war was 90% shooting and 10% actual melee combat... same as in Napoleonic wars - only very determined soldiers (on both sides) would actually wait for enemy to get close to fight with bayonets...

[veji1]

11 hours ago, JaM said:

If I recall correctly, close combat during Civil war was 90% shooting and 10% actual melee combat... same as in Napoleonic wars - only very determined soldiers (on both sides) would actually wait for enemy to get close to fight with bayonets...

In the peninsular campaign and later battles like Waterloo it's true, but earlier in the period infantry shock formations had a somewhat bigger role. But overall the point remains, Usually once a infantry unit charged another one with bayonets, at the moment of contact one was already about to break, so the shock combat didn't last long nor cause that many casualties, but it did cause units shattering as we would say in game term, whereas fire phase could have lasted a while longer.

[Karri]

17 hours ago, JaM said:

If I recall correctly, close combat during Civil war was 90% shooting and 10% actual melee combat... same as in Napoleonic wars - only very determined soldiers (on both sides) would actually wait for enemy to get close to fight with bayonets...

And actual melee combat is more a locked pushing match than a free-for-all bayonetfest. That is why a charge/assault order is always to take a position, never to run after enemy like it was agame of tag.

 

 

[JaM]

i think actual close combat should be portrayed as a very chaotic situation where some soldiers are charging, some firing some running away, while both units get disoriented by it.. It shouldn't be a synchronized event, where both sides fire salvo and then engage each other in bayonet fencing.. as that actually never happened in history...