Recent content by Ghost Dad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JM4OXFFE_o&feature=player_detailpage#t=1405s

SeanBeansShako said:

I'd like to give the player named Kevin a promotion to Major as well for his conduct in a siege we saw the other day.

Click to expand...

Your insubordination in this matter has lead me to an unfortunate conclusion.
Turn in your taco-hat, major. You are hereby demoted to major.

Musket shooting vs melee mode neutral animations:
This is kind of a silly immersion/fun suggestion that wouldn't have any huge effect on gameplay.

I assume it is possible that muskets could have different animations depending on if they are in firing or melee modes, since weapons without bayonets turn into clubs, but my suggestion is this:
In shooting mode, have the neutral stance be as it is now (holding the musket against the shoulder) but with the addition of maintaining that stance when walking (just holding the musket at the shoulder, not supporting it with the left hand) and holding it in a similar fashion to how it was in MM when running (holding it at the shoulder supported with the left hand).
In melee mode, have the neutral stance be 'port arms': the musket is held at a ~45* angle in front of the chest, sort of in line with the crossbelts. Use this animation when walking, too. When running, the current animation is perfect.

Why I think this would be neat:
It adds a little bit of immersion, particularly for line battles: historically, the 'port' position was used for standoffs and intimidation, and prior to bayonet charges. Seeing a line advancing toward you suddenly toss their weapons into port arms and break into a run would be amazing!
In addition, it adds yet another visual aid for what mode your weapon is in. Currently, the musket icons for firing and melee are easy enough to confuse at a glance that i have seen several people accidentally speared in the back.

Anyway, I just think it would be a nice addition that might not be too horrific to implement.

RIP strategic outhouse defense team

Women joining the army by pretending to be men is not actually historically inaccurate, it was surprisingly common. They would be thrown out if discovered, though.

In reverent memory, Maj. Treylis posthumously promoted to Maj.

Goons <3 BAB
Be our main force buddies forever

Goker said:

Not sure if it was mentioned, but probably was. In any case, I'd like to see less traffic at spawn. It is a huge problem when you have many players in the server. Regiment members having trouble finding each other in LB and Bots blocking everything in Commander Battles, those are really not fun.

I'm not really a modder and I don't really understand how it all works, but maybe there could be separate spawn points, depending on the regiment the player chose? Would be a great help if a solution could be created.

Cheers!

Click to expand...

This is a really good idea. Consider grouping spawns either by chosen unit, or by player banners.

I think having it pick a random uniform every time you go to the screen would be a nice addition.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being able to freelook, and no reason to limit it. It's crucial for maintaining situational awareness, and allows players to look around in line battles without breaking their formation.

People arguing the realism angle should consider that this is a game which is not striving to be ultra-realistic. Gameplay before realism.

The only real solution to this 'problem' would be to change the block animations. Personally, I'd rather see them be a high/low parry since that's a more reasonable way to deflect a stab, but it's a seriously minor gripe.

Gameplay before realism.

5arge said:

Ghost Dad said:

I have a suggestion for the future:

Perhaps give each side 1 or 2 pioneer squads of 2 to 4 sappers each, instead of attaching them to units. Having a single sapper with a line infantry unit didn't really work: we didn't know what to do with him, and going all trench-warfare wherever we ended up seemed to cheapen the event. If instead there were simply pioneer units, they could concentrate their efforts to fortifying key areas such as artillery positions and chokepoints. Perhaps they could also have some musket armed troops with them as protection, but be relegated to a support role rather than a combat one. Something like 2-4 sappers with 2-4 musket-armed light infantry/line infantry fighting using light infantry rules.

It would also be good if you could lay out rules for fighting from defensive positions, since line tactics do not work inside buildings/bunkers.

Click to expand...

If you read the new rules, they allow for a squad of 4 sappers for each side. That team is intended to fortify key positions on the map. Also, each infantry and skirmisher line is allowed to bring 1 sapper in their line if they wish. This is not required, but an option, and that 1 sapper is supposed to be used for destroying enemy fortifications, knocking down doors, and general support. The cannon crews are allowed to bring a few sappers for their own use, but they sacrifice armed guards in doing so. The rules are there to do what you are talking about, but it is up to you to make it happen. Nobody applied for sapper team, because I doubt few actually read the new rules enough to know they could. We need to find a good balanced number for build points, and then things will feel better. I thought 50 seemed ok, not too much, not too little.

Click to expand...

I understood the point of the sapper team position, but I think the reason you didn't get applications for it is due to the ability to have sappers with any unit. If it was more restricted (only sappers are in dedicated sapper units) but the role was slightly more flexible (give some musket armed escorts) I think you'd have more luck with applications.

I know I would definitely want to be part of a sapper team like that, it sounds like it would be a fun role particularly on maps with defensive locations. It just seemed that when you have just a single sapper with a unit, it's very difficult to utilize him, since you rarely encounter enemy fortifications, and you're too mobile to set up any fortifications yourself (as well as being sort of against the spirit of things) so the guy just doesn't really have anything to do for the battle except lay down random fortifications when he can.

I'm picturing each side having 1 or 2 pioneer teams consisting of 2-4 sappers with up to 4 musket armed escorts, fighting in loose order. They aren't defenseless because of the muskets, but they wouldn't be able to fight on their own because of the small number of them.

This would also allow them to double as artillery escorts. It's also a fairly accurate representation of how pioneer units were deployed in reality.

I have a suggestion for the future:

Perhaps give each side 1 or 2 pioneer squads of 2 to 4 sappers each, instead of attaching them to units. Having a single sapper with a line infantry unit didn't really work: we didn't know what to do with him, and going all trench-warfare wherever we ended up seemed to cheapen the event. If instead there were simply pioneer units, they could concentrate their efforts to fortifying key areas such as artillery positions and chokepoints. Perhaps they could also have some musket armed troops with them as protection, but be relegated to a support role rather than a combat one. Something like 2-4 sappers with 2-4 musket-armed light infantry/line infantry fighting using light infantry rules.

It would also be good if you could lay out rules for fighting from defensive positions, since line tactics do not work inside buildings/bunkers.

I had a sapper in my line infantry unit at last night's line battle, and didn't really know what to do with him. Building fortifications in random locations just seemed kind of cheap.

I think there should simply be one or two pioneer squads of 2 to 4 sappers each who perform whatever entrenching needs to be done. It would add a neat tactical element if you had to call for pioneers to fortify a position.