*Linebattle Rules*

[Shyoto]

Much better than officers are directed to stand behind their men than we direct people not to aim at them.

I feel like I'm talking to players who haven't played as an officer themselves and watched this happen.  Standing behind the line is even more dangerous to your health.  The man infront of you only absorbs one bullet.  And besides, half of the officer would be in the open as he should always be standing.

Also: "Shock and having to adapt"  Well that doesn't really work out either, we're talking about the moments where the lines are close enough to pick their targets, but will have time to fire several volleys.
All shooting an officer does is break the line so that the troops don't know where they're going and tend to end up fighting of thier own accord and just bunching up when told not to skirmish.

Which, tbh, doesn't make fun gameplay for the leaderless group.
So... target officers if you really wish, but bear in mind you may be ruining an entire group's fun...

 

[HarbingerOfDoom]

There's no point in discussing this; don't aim for officers. A thing I used in another linebattle game is that when the captain lines up their line, he moves a few meters away from that line. That way no one could intentionally hit him. Anyway, I don't want this to be a discussion thread for a minor rule. Personally, I think the cover rule should be discussed most, as I think it ruins the lineabttle.

 

[Hawker]

Seems like few of you actually read Harbinger's post properly. He never said that you had to be in full sight of the enemy at all times and that cover was forbidden utterly. All he was saying is that sitting *just* below the crest a hill or whatever and taking sniping shots while being completely safe from return fire defeats the point of having a line battle in the first place. Using the terrain to conceal your movements or cover yourself when not engaged is perfectly fine.

The historical example you give AgentGB, does not support your argument. Wellington didn't have his men sitting on the reverse slope at waterloo so they could take pot shots at the french all day, he did it to protect and conceal them. When actually giving volleys they were standing in the open at the top of the hill.
Also Agent, I've fought under your command before and frankly it felt more like fighting in a mob than a line.

Linebattles are not all about winning, it's about reenacting the tactics of the day and having fun, even if it does mean putting yourself at the mercy of enemy fire.

 

[AgentGB]

Seems like few of you actually read Harbinger's post properly. He never said that you had to be in full sight of the enemy at all times and that cover was forbidden utterly. All he was saying is that sitting *just* below the crest a hill or whatever and taking sniping shots while being completely safe from return fire defeats the point of having a line battle in the first place. Using the terrain to conceal your movements or cover yourself when not engaged is perfectly fine.

The historical example you give AgentGB, does not support your argument. Wellington didn't have his men sitting on the reverse slope at waterloo so they could take pot shots at the french all day, he did it to protect and conceal them. When actually giving volleys they were standing in the open at the top of the hill.
Also Agent, I've fought under your command before and frankly it felt more like fighting in a mob than a line.

Linebattles are not all about winning, it's about reenacting the tactics of the day and having fun, even if it does mean putting yourself at the mercy of enemy fire.

Yes i did read it actually, only your boots & shins are allowed to be protected by a crest of a hill? which is still standing in plain sight, also ive read that commanders often choose battlefield with flat terrain to suit there armies of the period, obviously not all maps cater for this, but why should a commander put his regiment in a clear line of sight for good sport? If an army was being layed seige too, would they not use the battlements provided? wouldn't a besieging army build trench systems to allow safe approach of there regiments when assaulting the walls with ladders etc?  Or using farm built stone walls?

I don't think commanders were that silly at the time, and would make use of any natural defence, unless in opened terrain. Line regiment are restricted to only being in line, column, & square, and already present a big enough target, if your worried about battles lasting to long, then set an objective on the map, such as, "if this faction is holding this point by end game" then they are automatically the victor (by setting the  control flags at a certain points)? that should be sufficient enough to draw regiments from camping? Our battles last about 10 - 15 min, historically these battles went on a lot longer?? so whats the problem? Ive never once emptied my ammo pouch in this mod? mabey the modder should give less ammunition to make shot count at close range?  But putting in these extra rules will over complicate things, and just have people accusing other people of cheating. Skirmishers can still use cover and be in very loose formation? This will make line infantry even bigger targets in events, unless they are for monday line battle rules?, its already deadly enough trying to have a shoot out with the 95th even if your using cover and they are too? you have to charge them!? We have trained against them, if your a good shot, your still hit your mark

You can speak for yourself? But were about winning, if you have a good time standing in line in the open getting knocked off one by one, thinking "o this great, really enjoying this" then each to there own, personnaly, im not the commander of the 52nd anymore, i have actually have given command to someone who can do a better job then me, and i have no problem about it, as i want the regiment to succeed, the example i gave was of commanders using his brain to preserve his troops, and not preforming silly tactics as our beloved henry simmerson from sharpe.

Also thank you for your words of comfort on my command skills, ive only played one battle in which i had command of the public, given to me by DonaldMacDonald, and if i remember correctly i actually did a good job! Althou we may not have marched in column, we still deployed in line, and i made use of all cover, and tried to keep you alive as long as possible while still following orders from Donald. Think i did a pretty good job for a first regimental commander role, and got kind words of recognition from Donald which gave me confidence to form a regiment.

Overall, i respect your opinion for defending these rules, but there other ways of luring camping regiments out while not robbing any tactical play as i have stated above

Good day Sir

 

[Hawker]

Ok, I still don't think you understand, my fault for not making my point clear. There is still plenty of room for tactical play with these rules; you can still use the terrain to your advantage, conceal your movements, rapidly flank the enemy line and get enfilade fire on them etc. In fact these rules promote that kind of play. You may not fire from a concealed and protected position because if you are safe there is no reason to move around, attacking the position is too dangerous and thus we end up with a campfest.

This is why we are only seeing long range shootouts (a futile excercise) and bayonet charges. We're mostly missing out on the exchange of volleys over moderate range that defined the battles of the era and the line battles suffer for it.

The commanders of the time were not 'silly', the battles had to be fought that way so things would actually be decided. Can you imagine armies of thousands all hiding behind trees taking pot shots at each other with muskets? We're meant to be replicating this form or warfare as closely as possible because its fun. Time taken for the battles is not much of an issue for us, although I'm sure the unlucky folks who get sniped by the ridiculous long range volleys would be very happy if everyone would hurry up.

I don't see how the solution you propse to stop campers is different from the flag system already in place. Capturing the flags is prohibited already because people want a battle, it doesn't necessarily matter if we win or not as long as we get to kill each other doing it.

You can speak for yourself? But were about winning, if you have a good time standing in line in the open getting knocked off one by one, thinking "o this great, really enjoying this" then each to there own,

Yes thats exactly what it is, which is why I'm attending the linebattles in the first place. Being in a line offers no advantage you know? Just like standing in the open doesn't. Sure everyone plays to win, but when you sacrifice the point of the game in the first place to do it...
It sounds like what you are after is a competetive regular match with organised teams, where you use every trick possible to win. It is not a bad idea but unfortunately that is not what a line battle is. Maybe you could set something like that up so you can play with likeminded people?

As it stands, it seems like some people are playing in such a way as to stay just within the rules as to not get an outright ban but exploiting every possible grey area not fully covered by the rules and everyone else is forced to adapt. These new extra rules would greatly alleviate the problem.
Everytime you sit in cover sniping you are ruining other people's fun, it isn't far from trolling really.

Also I wasn't taking a jab at your skills as a commander AgentGB but your methods, you were successful... but it felt more like a regular match than a line battle.

Sorry for the essay.

Ah one more thing. I really like this rule *Regiments must be fully formed in a tight shoulder to should formation before they're allowed to fire. It would make drilling and practice a whole lot more important as the speed with which you can form up could give a great advantage. And of course more importantly, no more firing mid bayonet charge, promoting tactical play even more.

 

[oblivion618]

I have to say I agree with most of these rules.

1. Do Not Aim For Commanders - Extremely annoying. On Sunday, I was getting picked off a lot by riflemen. Whats the point in Captains and Sergeants if we just keep getting picked off.

2. Firing From A Concealed Position - Again extremely annoying. As most will tell you, I always make my men stand up in full view when firing in line. Firing from behind a hill while in line is a dirty tactic in my opinion and if both lines do it, you could be there for hours.

3. No Crouching When In Single Line - Again I agree. As said above, I make my men stand to fire. Fair enough if your in square or double rank, but if your in a single rank line then you should be standing, even when reloading.

 

[HarbingerOfDoom]

Exactly, the entire point is that BOTH lines follow these rules, thus no one has an advantage and it'll just be more fun overall.

 

[AgentGB]

ok guys,  just put a poll on it or somthing,  i must use dirty tactics, thou considering it an art of trolling is a bit strong 

i understand what your saying, but as long as ive been playing line battles, crouching even in single line as always been used, so you can pop up, take a shot, then crouch behind the crest of the hill, otherwise  maps need to be reconsidered?

if the polls confirm tat the majority want to play to this guideline then we will adapt, but for the moment, we will follow the old guidelines?

Also when i meant setting an objective i mean, it could be anything from a farm house, crop field or certain area of the map, so battles would naturally get drawn to this area, adding the flag spawn to these area of question will just make sure the army holding this location is benefiting. This would speed things along? would it not? So people wouldnt have to wait about

Also giving people 10 rounds of musket balls instead of 30? would that not discourage sniping from beyond hills etc?  if you only have 10 round, you may choose to fire half of that at long distance, using the rest for close up volleys. Also i think you should be able to use a chambered shot during a bayonett charge if you haven't wasted it in a volley?

but its up to you guys,  put a poll on it, also with an option for "some rules but not all of them" and get people to explain there reason, and give a soloution also, but if theres doubts in the rule system with community members, you cant keep defending the rules saying i haven't read them properly or dont understand, you need to be open to suggestions as Harbinger stated in the OP

 

[Hawker]

Perhaps I was mistaken but I thought you were insisting that one simple *No shooting from cover* rule would eliminate all tactical play.
And you are right of course that the opinion of everyone needs to be taken into account. Agreed that a poll is needed.

 

[lord_olafson]

No, it wouldnt. Becouse you can search for hills, hold bridges...

 

[HarbingerOfDoom]

Actually I suggest we use my set of linebattle rules in a linebattle to see how it plays.

 

[Longshaft]

Crouching is allowed, it was practically made for line battles, double ranks etc.

 

[oblivion618]

Crouching is allowed, it was practically made for line battles, double ranks etc.

yeah, but we are talking about when you are in a single line.

 

[Krimdor]

and that's allowed.

隐藏

NOT!

 

[gamerman345]

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

I agree. Ok, its absurd having one line crouching and firing, but it is very fun if lines can use cover behind hills. It adds an unprecedented level of tactics to line battles.

 

[HarbingerOfDoom]

Actually it makes people camp a hill, if you've ever been to a linebattle

 

[Slayton]

Crouching should be allowed. what else is it in the game for?

 

[lord_olafson]

It is for light infantry, and for forming two rank lines.

 

[gamerman345]

Actually it makes people camp a hill, if you've ever been to a linebattle

So? who gives a toss. This is war, commanders should be allowed to order what they like.

Besides,  i recall your 33rd regiment camping on the hill next to the artillery in 2 ranks at waterloo.

 

[Krimdor]

i believe he means behind a hill not on top of it