If a regiment spreads out and charges a standing line with the firing in the charge rule, you can be sure the standing line will take more casualities.Hekko said:
- Thread starter Furrnox
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
- Status
Lowlander
Sergeant Knight at Arms
Hekko said:
What? Do you think regiments will just run straight in to a regiment without trying to flank nor using any tactics whatsoever? The answer is no. Shooting in the charge is not enabled in a few linebattles in the community and works very well. Firing in a charge promotes, as it has already been said, charge battles. Regiments who are good at melee will look to get there as fast as possible whether firing in the charge or not. If they choose not to form up and fire and instead just charge, then they are disadvantaging themselves.
The purpose of a competition, in this case, is to test all capabilities of a regiment. This being simplified down to shooting, melee and organisation/discipline. Not allowing shooting in the charge would make regiments think twice about charging so all aspects of what a linebattle should be, will be tested and not just a 'melee' regiment charging straight in to an enemy line because its the only thing they do well. You make it out to seem that if a regiment doesnt fire when charging they have lost a melee. Strange how a form of shooting is being classed as a central part of melee.
Hekko
Master Knight
HarbingerOfDoom said:
You seem to overlook that the static line, in it's own interest, will break up and countercharge meaning that both regiments are on an equal footing. Not the opposite where one side gets to shoot ad infinitum and the other gets to die.
Lowlander said:
What? Do you think that regiments will simply allow themselves to be flanked? The distance that has to be travelled in order to flank someone is greater than the distance needed to turn. Meaning that they will always turn to face you. Not firing in the charge may be interesting with multiple assets on the field including cavalry and artillery, however, it has no place what so ever in a competitive 1v1 linebattle. Firing in the charge makes melee a viable way to win a linebattle, nothing more nothing less. As you could see in my post, shooting is still a dominant tactic if you want to win between two equally good opponents, therefore, the issue with early and frequent charges does not lie with the rules, but with the preferences of the regiment and the lack of melee ability on the recieving end. The rules should not cater to that lack of ability.
Lowlander said:
You want shooting, melee and organisation to be integral parts of how well a regiment does, while advocating the removal of melee as a means to win... contradictory. Shooting is not a central part of melee, it's a central part of getting into melee without having lost already.
Lowlander
Sergeant Knight at Arms
Hekko said:
It is not impossible to get in to melee successfully, what a load of nonsense. Examples of this are the linebattles that already exist in the community. By allowing firing in the charge you are then tipping the balance of a linebattle towards melee and lowering the potency of any ranged combat. By removing firing in the charge it balances both quite easily. Melee is won by the melee. Charges have to be timed correctly as to minimalism casualties and not as you are describing it to be, a regiment running head first in to a regiment shooting at them. If a regiment doesnt fire at whatever point, it is not the removal of firing in the charge that is disadvantaging them, its their decision to avoid the use of gunpowder. Firing in the charge advantages both regiments, with it removed both are still equal.
Hekko
Master Knight
Lowlander said:
Please enlighten me how one times a charge at someone who is continiously firing at you and knows how to turn and face you? Potency of ranged combat is certainly being reduced, on the other hand, ranged combat was the supperior strategy between to equally skilled opponents, so I do not see why the potency should be further increased. Please do take the time and effort to understand my initial post in this thread.
Lowlander said:
Firing on the charge does not advantage both sides. It removes the downside of standing still and reloading when being charged while removing the upside of being able to fire back. So infact it improves the chanses of the static side while it decreases the chanses of the charging side. From a starting point where the charging side already was at disadvantage. This hardly sounds fair nor reasonable.
You know you could just move in a line towards the enemy and shoot that way... (march gives no negative aiming)
The point of not allowing shooting on charge ithat people just spread out and go play like TDM and just pointblank people and do other ****.
Lacks the spirit of a loinbottle..
The point of not allowing shooting on charge ithat people just spread out and go play like TDM and just pointblank people and do other ****.
Lacks the spirit of a loinbottle..
TotalWarNinja
Regular
Regiment name: 3. Jydske Infanteriregiment
Tag: DDA_3JI
Contact person: Oberstløjtnant Skriver
Server: Yes
Region: EU (Denmark)
Tag: DDA_3JI
Contact person: Oberstløjtnant Skriver
Server: Yes
Region: EU (Denmark)
Malakith
Recruit
So the static line, which up until now has been a "line" in every sense of the word, now spreads out or as you call it "counter charges" to ensure they don't take significant casualties from the enemy who are spread out and also "charging" albeit with the intention of firing a shot off.
Sounds to me like for a small fraction of time both sides are pretending to be Skirmishers to maximise enemy casualties whilst minimising their own under the guise of "charging".
This is especially apparent when one side doesn't "counter charge" because they feel it is against the spirit of the period and would like to actually follow the "line" part of a Line Battle, run that through your mathematical model and see how "balanced" the scenario is.
No thank you, I will continue to support the proposed method of the entire line must be formed up and stationary to fire.
Evanovic
Knight at Arms
These arguments for 'no firing in the charge' are poor because they're reliant on 'spirit of the linebattle' entailing such etiquette, which to be honest it does not have to. I quote Alexander Suvorov, a legendary Russian General who never lost a battle: 'The bullet is a fool, the bayonet is wise'; there's no reason why melee can't be a major part of a Linebattle and shouldn't be a viable way of turning the tide in a battle: it's historical and a good point of differentiation between regiments.
We played a 1vs1 Linebattle with the Prussian Army (mainly 19te) yesterday and it had the 'no firing in the charge rule'. Because of our slightly superior (you could say luckier) firing results they were often forced to charge. However, they never managed to enter melee on remotely equal terms, melee was always a clean up job rather than an equal fight, and it was fundamentally because we got around 2 extra volleys in the duration of their charge which exponentially reduced their chances.
If they had been able to fire in the charge they'd have ultimately prevented us from getting those extra volleys by either forcing us to counter-charge or take some losses from standing still. We'd still have entered melee on with a slight advantage, because we may well have anyway got an extra volley in, or we'd have been able to time our shots first, but it'd be in no way extreme.
Allowing firing in the charge is simply a way of making melee influential in linebattles without actually making melee better than camping.
We played a 1vs1 Linebattle with the Prussian Army (mainly 19te) yesterday and it had the 'no firing in the charge rule'. Because of our slightly superior (you could say luckier) firing results they were often forced to charge. However, they never managed to enter melee on remotely equal terms, melee was always a clean up job rather than an equal fight, and it was fundamentally because we got around 2 extra volleys in the duration of their charge which exponentially reduced their chances.
If they had been able to fire in the charge they'd have ultimately prevented us from getting those extra volleys by either forcing us to counter-charge or take some losses from standing still. We'd still have entered melee on with a slight advantage, because we may well have anyway got an extra volley in, or we'd have been able to time our shots first, but it'd be in no way extreme.
Allowing firing in the charge is simply a way of making melee influential in linebattles without actually making melee better than camping.
Hekko
Master Knight
Malakith said:
So the static line, which up until now has been a "line" in every sense of the word, now spreads out or as you call it "counter charges" to ensure they don't take significant casualties from the enemy who are spread out and also "charging" albeit with the intention of firing a shot off.[/quote]
"The third scenario is pointblanking where both sides are spread out charging eachother, in this scenario melee at large commences alot quicker and as such the shooting kills will be lower than when shooting at chargers that cannot fire back, thus this gets the number 2"
So this scenario has been there since my first post.
Malakith said:
Does the 77y melee in formation? If not you will end up playing like a skirmisher anyway, in which case the small difference in time spent out of formation hardly is a determinal thing to your immersion, while it on the whole makes melee viable. If you purposefully play in a way that isn't set on winning you break a fundamental idea that both sides are playing to win, in which case the outcome is uninteresting since you deserve to lose by not playing to win.
Malakith said:
On what competitive gameplay basis?
In order to not derail the thread further I made the following topic to discuss shooting during the charge:
http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,232843.0.html
Vorlen
Squire
We had an amusing situation yesterday actually. First LB i've played in a long time. One round we charged, and the enemy turned tail and ran.
How do you "fix" that. We couldn't shoot them, so we chased them around for a while and then gave up, reforming line, and subsequently having them reform line in a position that was advantageous for them.
Anyone who advocates firing on a charage destroys the linebattle needs to get down off of their high horse and realise that the tactics and atmosphere that they are proposing is something they themselves destroy anyway. What with hill camping, hiding behind hills with only faces showing, double skirmish lines, people wanting to fight with more than one line, etc etc. There is such an abundance of elements in this game that are exploity, to pick only one is silly. All these words, atmosphere, tactics, strategy, realism..... You have got to be kidding if you believe these things really exist. It's merely a different set of exploity gameplay that is used.
The most amusing part is people still pretend shooting is a "thing". Shooting is not a thing, you put your mouse in the vague area and click. There are no regiments that are good at shooting. There are regiments that get lucky at shooting. But as we all saw, the first guy who came along and said "I know how to shoot accurately gais" got flamed as an exploiter quicker than a latin american government embezzle's public money.
Charging an enemy without shooting, means he will sit there till the last second picking you off, i would say it's nearly impossible to charge a stationairy line without him getting at least one close range volley off at you. Charging with shooting means he is forced to break up and engage, lest his own line get peppered by fire.
As i said, i'm glad the organisers made a dicision, it's their tournament and they should stick with it and have the balls to do so. I don't want them to change it. This is more to say, Srsly gais.... srsly....
How do you "fix" that. We couldn't shoot them, so we chased them around for a while and then gave up, reforming line, and subsequently having them reform line in a position that was advantageous for them.
Anyone who advocates firing on a charage destroys the linebattle needs to get down off of their high horse and realise that the tactics and atmosphere that they are proposing is something they themselves destroy anyway. What with hill camping, hiding behind hills with only faces showing, double skirmish lines, people wanting to fight with more than one line, etc etc. There is such an abundance of elements in this game that are exploity, to pick only one is silly. All these words, atmosphere, tactics, strategy, realism..... You have got to be kidding if you believe these things really exist. It's merely a different set of exploity gameplay that is used.
The most amusing part is people still pretend shooting is a "thing". Shooting is not a thing, you put your mouse in the vague area and click. There are no regiments that are good at shooting. There are regiments that get lucky at shooting. But as we all saw, the first guy who came along and said "I know how to shoot accurately gais" got flamed as an exploiter quicker than a latin american government embezzle's public money.
Charging an enemy without shooting, means he will sit there till the last second picking you off, i would say it's nearly impossible to charge a stationairy line without him getting at least one close range volley off at you. Charging with shooting means he is forced to break up and engage, lest his own line get peppered by fire.
As i said, i'm glad the organisers made a dicision, it's their tournament and they should stick with it and have the balls to do so. I don't want them to change it. This is more to say, Srsly gais.... srsly....
- Status
