*Linebattle Rules*

[HarbingerOfDoom]

Hello,

Since I enjoy linebattling, along with a lot of other people, I decided to write down a good balanced guideline for linebattling that will make linebattles more interesting and fun. I think these rules are good and should be followed, though you can give your opinion about them.

Line Infantry rules
-----------------------
*A regiment must have a commander present at all times
*If your regiment falls under five people or less it *must* join up with another regiment if present
*If all the commanders of a regiment die, it must join up with another regiment if present

*Regiments must be fully formed in a tight shoulder to should formation before they're allowed to fire
*During exchange of volleys, regiments must tighten up their line after each volley so they keep a tight formation.

*You may *NOT* place your line in cover and fire from that position. This means it cannot be hidden behind a hill or so. The regiment must be placed in FULL view of the enemy from the boots up. Meaning that boots may be in cover.
*You may however hide your regiment behind cover if you don't fire from that position, that's perfectly allowed.
*You may *NOT* intentionally aim for the captain of the enemy regiment.
*While charging you may not reload.
*LINE REGIMENTS may *NOT*crouch down ever.

Horse Regiment rules
----------------------------
<Yet to come, I think it's more important to agree on infantry rules as those are most played during public linebattles>

 

[Refleax]

I strongly agree with these rules. Taking cover behind hills and shooting just prolongs battles since the other side will also take cover and both lines will be almost impossible to hit.

 

[HarbingerOfDoom]

Most of the rules posted in the above link only partly cover what linebattling contains. I believe the rules I wrote pretty much cover anything that involves a linebattle and I'd like leaders to read them and tell me what they think.

 

[dragoon47]

*LINE REGIMENTS may *NOT*crouch down ever.

umm...double, triple lines, squares.

 

[Krimdor]

i one straight line they might not crouch

 

[HarbingerOfDoom]

Exactly, it's pretty obvious that you can crouch if you're the front rank in a double rank.

 

[AgentGB]

hmmm some of these rules are way to strict, and its robbing any tactical play the game has atm,  i can see your point about using cover, but cover also as a negative effect, from playing, ive seen that opposing regiments can use the same cover sheltering them from fire against them allowing for the regiment to close, give a volley and catrch the regiment off guard, its also easy to flank these postions of cover, as regiments cannot see the enemys approach

also more rules added in as such, will just end up with everyone just about breaking the rules,  also i think the targeting of officers should be fair game? Althou there may have been an honour system saying that officers shoudlnt be targeted first, i think they were usually killed anyway if leading from the front, it should be up to the officer to remain in safety at all times

otherwise we might as well march regiments within ten paces of each other, unlesh a volley then charge. As cover helps promote tactical play. It should be natural for a commander to preserve the lifes of his men, wellington historically ordered his regiments, to withdraw so many paces behind a crest of a hill to avoid cannonade.  Im not the grand ol duke of york, who marched 10,000 men, but i wouldnt ask a regiment to stand in plain sight to be shot out on a peak of a hill, when i can use the natural cover, unless there was a method to the madness. The exchange of shots, tends to draw the loosing force into a charge anyway, but can also give a flanking regiment a chance to approach the high ground from a different point

But your ideas on, regiments falling below a certain number, mabey they should attach to another regiment?  but atm i think the current rules are fine?

But your sorta asking Humans to play like Bots?  I think some of the rules already  have to many restraints, and some have been lost alltogether, such as a line regiment falling under a certain strength is allowed to skirmish, and also were allowed to deploy small squads for scouting purposes or skirmishing, which i can understand why its been done away with, as its hard to keep track if people are playing to that rules honestly

 

[Refleax]

hmmm some of these rules are way to strict, and its robbing any tactical play the game has atm,  i can see your point about using cover, but cover also as a negative effect, from playing, ive seen that opposing regiments can use the same cover sheltering them from fire against them allowing for the regiment to close, give a volley and catrch the regiment off guard, its also easy to flank these postions of cover, as regiments cannot see the enemys approach

also more rules added in as such, will just end up with everyone just about breaking the rules,  also i think the targeting of officers should be fair game? Althou there may have been an honour system saying that officers shoudlnt be targeted first, i think they were usually killed anyway if leading from the front, it should be up to the officer to remain in safety at all times

otherwise we might as well march regiments within ten paces of each other, unlesh a volley then charge. As cover helps promote tactical play. It should be natural for a commander to preserve the lifes of his men, wellington historically ordered his regiments, to withdraw so many paces behind a crest of a hill to avoid cannonade.  Im not the grand ol duke of york, who marched 10,000 men, but i wouldnt ask a regiment to stand in plain sight to be shot out on a peak of a hill, when i can use the natural cover, unless there was a method to the madness. The exchange of shots, tends to draw the loosing force into a charge anyway, but can also give a flanking regiment a chance to approach the high ground from a different point

But your ideas on, regiments falling below a certain number, mabey they should attach to another regiment?  but atm i think the current rules are fine?

But your sorta asking Humans to play like Bots?  I think some of the rules already  have to many restraints, and some have been lost alltogether, such as a line regiment falling under a certain strength is allowed to skirmish, and also were allowed to deploy small squads for scouting purposes or skirmishing, which i can understand why its been done away with, as its hard to keep track if people are playing to that rules honestly

In the previous event we've been in both sides camped behind a cliff and hopelessly shot volleys at each other which was really dumb and took ages. In my opinion though this will all be solved when a line battle map is created since hopefully places to take cover will be limited.

 

[Shyoto]

[1]  hmmm some of these rules are way to strict, and its robbing any tactical play the game has atm,

[2]  also i think the targeting of officers should be fair game? Althou there may have been an honour system saying that officers shoudlnt be targeted first, i think they were usually killed anyway if leading from the front, it should be up to the officer to remain in safety at all times

[3] otherwise we might as well march regiments within ten paces of each other, unlesh a volley then charge. As cover helps promote tactical play. It should be natural for a commander to preserve the lifes of his men, wellington historically ordered his regiments, to withdraw so many paces behind a crest of a hill to avoid cannonade. 

[4] But your ideas on, regiments falling below a certain number, mabey they should attach to another regiment? 

[1] Amen.

[2] There was no such honour system.  The officers were very often targetted first, and only survived due to sheer luck of the inaccurate muskets and the fact there was 1 officer to every 50 meatshields-er, troopers.  We have 1 officer/sergeant for every 5 or so troopers, making them statistically much easier to hit.  But if the officers are killed off first, how can we organise the linebattle?  If every player on the field who tries to take command is dead first, then every "linebattle" will turn into either a brawl or a giant skirmish.  Don't shoot officers.  Trust me, the events will be more fun for it.

On the flip side, if the officer is at the front of a charge, 50 paces ahead of his men and running straight into your musket, he's just begging you to pull the trigger.

[3] Amen

[4] I like this suggestion.  It would have to be proportional to the event's population though.  If the regiments drops to, like, 4 guys and they're facing down a full 15-man regiment, forming line will have them dead.  But if they break and skirmish, it's just damned annoying.  There should at least be the optional choice of breaking ranks to flee towards the nearest friendly unit and reform on them.

 

[crazyboy11]

Line battles are already boring enough without adding extra boring.

 

[HarbingerOfDoom]

Well, linebattles now result in people camping and crouching behind hills. And about shooting officers, it should be disallowed because a line would just start skirmishing without the leader.

And these rules aren''t too strict at all, they just seem that way. Lines crouching behind a hill is very boring.

Also, cover doesn't promote tactical play, it promotes camping.

 

[IrishPraetorian]

Ive some sympathy for leaders who get shot from a stray bullet whilst behind their lines but realistically, we cant expect people to not shoot officers so long as they insist on leading from the front. If an officer is in a line then aimed or not he is as likely to take a bullet as the next man. Too many regiments follow the system of having commanders form lines and columns by joining up at the side and moving left or right.

If we could get our regiments trained in forming lines and columns without needing officers in front we would all be much better off I suspect.

 

[HarbingerOfDoom]

I'm not saying that commander killing is unavoidable, but people shouldn't intentionally aim for them either

 

[Shyoto]

Ive some sympathy for leaders who get shot from a stray bullet whilst behind their lines but realistically, we cant expect people to not shoot officers so long as they insist on leading from the front. If an officer is in a line then aimed or not he is as likely to take a bullet as the next man. Too many regiments follow the system of having commanders form lines and columns by joining up at the side and moving left or right.

If we could get our regiments trained in forming lines and columns without needing officers in front we would all be much better off I suspect.

But most of the time the lines are facing you, or the collumn is marching tangetially to you.  I.e., you're looking at the Officer on one end, and then a line of troopers.

@ * * * * * * * * * <--like this  [@ officer, * troop]

Unless you aim for the front/far side of the line instead of the center (which you should be doing to maximise your chances of killing the enemy's troops) then only a few stray shots should be spinning past the officer.


@ * * (* * + * *) * * * <-- like this  [ (+) crosshair]

Again, like I said, if the officer is blatantly in front of his men and coming straight at your musket, he should expect that the bullets will hit him.

 

[IrishPraetorian]

I believe the point would remain that even if an officer is at the end of the line rather than the center, he is still as likely to take a shot as a man in the middle. Even with the entirety of an enemy force aiming for the center of your line, the sheer spread of bullets guarantees that no single point is sheltered from fire.

 

[HarbingerOfDoom]

You miss the point of the rule. The rule merely prevents people from actually aiming for the commander.

 

[Shyoto]

I believe the point would remain that even if an officer is at the end of the line rather than the center, he is still as likely to take a shot as a man in the middle. Even with the entirety of an enemy force aiming for the center of your line, the sheer spread of bullets guarantees that no single point is sheltered from fire.

No.  No point is 'safe'.  But if you've actually watched a well-organised linebattle, the losses don't start at the edges.  The closing up always moves to the centre where there is a pile of bodies, because there is a spread, but still a concentration in the center.  Shift your aim down the line, and that's where the concentration of bodies moves...

Besides which, it is as the distance is closing that the aiming really becomes a problem, as the chance of hitting your target goes up.  If everyone was targetting the officer at 100 or less paces, he won't survive for more than a volley or two.

 

[IrishPraetorian]

Which is why officers should be in the rear, a position which is relatively speaking 'safe'. It is difficult enough to enforce a rule about clear conduct but a rule about where people should or should not aim would be near unenforceable. Much better than officers are directed to stand behind their men than we direct people not to aim at them.

 

[AgentGB]

erm, well how we play, the flag bearer is the anchor from which the regiment organises itself on, if his shot another player picks up the colours or spontoon. If his killed while using his rifle, you just make a fellow player the anchor point. If an officer is shot, they still continue to giv commands from spectate so not all is lost. Also from a distance, a regiments priority is to shoot other rankers, as the officer poses no threat, gettin a long distance shot with a pistol is pretty hard, thou i did see it done by Deliverance, who was commanding the 52nd Monday this gone But obviously as they close range the officer may become a target due to him being overpowered in melee for any good swordmen. Officers should direct the Sgt from behind the ranks, occasionally scouting/peeking over terrain to direct there regiment

but as it stands, there is already a rule in place forbidding the shooting off officers, thou its hard to enforce, as you can't tell if its pot luck, so this is a rule that to me is in a grey area. If they close to a dangerous range, i will shoot an officer then allow him to sweep thru killing 3 of my fellow members. Thou i won't bother aiming for him at long distance as i see enemy rankers as more of a threat

Its a matter of target priority at the time. So IMO the rule should mabey be scrapped, but its still in affect, so i wouldn't worry about it to much,  Our commander/s can still direct orders when dead. Also killing an enemy commander is part of the tactical play, if you can make a enemy regiment loose cohesion for a few seconds due to the shock, and having to quickly adapt to line battle rules in place. Its realistic, and helps for a more decisive victory?  If the leaderless army goes into skirmish mode, and the rules for this aren't being used (being under a certain strength), they are breaking the rules? Members should always rally on the next senior member or flagbearer as the anchor?

just my opinion anyway

 

[Leberecht Reinhold]

The problem is not shooting officers in volleys, as some said, they are on the edges and they are far from being the first to die.

The problem comes with marching. The officer is on front, and the regiment in his back. He is like a diana in that moment.