Army of Liberty: a Fantasy Revolutionary Warfare Quest
- Thread starter Photomajig
- Start date
- Fantasy Historic
- Location
- Finland
Please try to remain civil. These debates are very valuable to me, but not when they devolve to expletives and accusations.
A lot of the problem here seems to stem from turn-based resolution. I suspect simultaneous would be a magnitude worse for all the predicting and mind games, since the AP system means you have to think about a wider variety of possible actions.
Square formation is definitely something I can introduce. That, partial-AP Ready Actions, movement penalties from moving into the melee reach of foes, and potentially Facing change limitations seems to me capable of nerfing cavalry an appropriate amount. I'll do some testing of the different options.
I'm not sold on preventing Moving after Charging. The other changes should increase the risk of getting stuck in melee, which makes Moving away more costly.
A lot of the problem here seems to stem from turn-based resolution. I suspect simultaneous would be a magnitude worse for all the predicting and mind games, since the AP system means you have to think about a wider variety of possible actions.
Square formation is definitely something I can introduce. That, partial-AP Ready Actions, movement penalties from moving into the melee reach of foes, and potentially Facing change limitations seems to me capable of nerfing cavalry an appropriate amount. I'll do some testing of the different options.
I'm not sold on preventing Moving after Charging. The other changes should increase the risk of getting stuck in melee, which makes Moving away more costly.
Sounds good, and I agree that this should probably do the trick. I also like that this would mean nerfing cavalry without touching their stats but instead by modifying some of the general mechanics.
I think square formation should fit in well, which is a demonstration of how good the new AP system is. If you spend, let's say 2 AP going into square formation, this means you can only shoot or move once, drastically reducing speed or firepower. Thus the Square formation itself does not have to affect movement speed or firepower, that is baked into the AP cost. A unit not in square formation will always outshoot and outmaneuver one in a square, which of course should be the case.
Red Rationalist
Spinning in eternity
- Location
- Andro-Orlando Hair Saloon
- Pronouns
- They/Them
Hmm, reflecting on the square formation: I think we should be prohibiting shooting of a unit in square formation, in addition to the square breaking once you move or do another order as bracing works. I mean, you can't really form a conventional line that fires when you are shooting. Or one could also introduce mechanics about rolling a 1d25 for an attack rather than a full 1d100, though I prefer to keep things simple. (Probably should also be more vulnerable against artillery, if we get around to introducing specialized muntions).
So, when would you actually want to use this? Unsurprisingly, this is only really useful against cavalry, though cavalry also plays a larger role. So isolated units of infantry could form a square to prepare against cavalry, similar to how we have units in a forward position brace against an infantry. This comes at the cost of not really being able to do stuff against other units, but at least you are not going be caught by surprise.
Ok, what are the actual impacts? A square formations is basically immobile and can't do much against infantry, but it's good at exerting a zone of control. This makes it a tool just to deal with a charge, largely for controlling gaps against the cavalry or screening infantry behind it. The most straightforward way to deal with it is to keep one infantry permanently as a square in the sides, though having cavalry intercept is vastly preferable. This does rob you of infantry for the main line, so likely not an option you would choose. Alternatively, one infantry unit could (Ready Action[Move, Square]) to block approaching cavalry from an avenue, which is useful for reorganizing your line while you are under cavalry threat. Cavalry would require to swing more from a side with little to not infantry if they want to achieve an impact, which is fair enough. Also, artillery batteries could be more protected by placing infantry in square formation next to them, though this is somewhat manpower intensive.
The basics there wouldn't change, as you would want to coordinate a charge with cavalry flanking to pin the enemy infantry down (which i what we have been doing). Though to be honest, squares are useful insofar they allow you devote more cavalry to charge without loosing screens. That one is a big implications and also a choice that historically happened.
Aside from that, the square would probably also used to defend a marching column against infantry, which does have some neat implications. You don't want to charge if the unit is actually forming a square, but you want the enemy to think you are about to charge. The threat of a charge can be used to suppress movement, which makes cavalry useful for slowing down an approaching enemy. Still a useful role, though a more indirect one like the artillery ready fire rather than a straightforward means of dealing damage. The threat of a cavalry charge is more a function of cavalry than the cavalry itself. Additionally, cavalry would need artillery support to effectivly break enemy squares, which is how they dealt with those historically. Hmm, I genuinely underestimated the utility somewhat.
Alright, reviewing this: What has changed about cavalry overall? Facing change limitations prevent the zig-zag actions, though those only really became relevant after we broke trough the line and functionally won the battle. Not sure if this changes much of the main battle, considering we spent multiple actions on charging. Though this would turn most movement into an L shape, which does influence positioning more due to being less able to swing around obstacles. Infantry advancement would also have to follow simpler routes, which could be good.
Partial ready AP do change how you form an army somewhat, though they would mostly be useful for a cautious opponent trying to pre-empt a charge. A tradeoff between movement and defence, which in turn has broader implications on manevoure. To be honest, I don't see this applying much outside of cavalry trying to slide into a very tight gap, which likely would go. This increases security a bit in general, making the flanks a more vital avenue. Alright, slight changes to where our flanks are., though I don't think we have seen battlefields with a suitable place aside from Mauvais.
Movement penalties from moving into melee range. Hmm, I think this should apply more to braced unit specifically rather than ones standing in a line. I don't think there is anything wrong with cavalry being able to get a quick hit and run on a unfortunate marching column, considering their role as skirmishers before the battle. Regardless, I don't think we would be seeing cavalry attacks that often in the front anyways, considering the existing penalties for doing so. Hmm, though using a cavalry attack on the flanks in conjunction with a frontal assault is a possible, if very bloody way to gain the upper hand. Heavy cavalry is useful there, considering their double advantage, though also likely to take heavier casualties.
Overall uses: Flanking (when terrain permits), suppressing an advancing column movement, skirmishes and screening and potential support for breaking part of the front when combined with infantry, distracting the enemy via a feint on the flank and scouting, of course. Overall, the changes allow us to shift the burden of screening somewhat onto the infantry, though I would vastly preferring leaving this to the more mobile infantry. To be honest, the only change really relevant to what happened during T2 would have been the movement facing change, which would have still allowed 2 crucial charges at the cost of one turn of artillery fire. Don't have the time to play this trough in detail, though it does change a lot about general army composition. Hmm, alright.
To be honest, cavalry have a pretty hard time near the core battle already. Exploitation attacks are impressive, but a frontal charge is pretty bad for them. This will shift the core interactions to be infantry line on infantry line again.
My opinion is that this is not needed, 1d100 full Shooting in a square is ok. Historically, the Square did shoot at approaching cavalry, and could do some damage although less than a full line. But the thing is, if using Square costs 2 AP, this already reduces damage considerably. Infantry in a line can Shoot-Shoot-Shoot (3d100) or Shoot-Shoot-Brace (2d100) while the Square can only do Square-Shoot (1d100). This means the Square does substantially less damage, no special rules necessary.
For me, this sounds fine? Combat should revolve around line infantry in this era, with artillery and cavalry in important support roles. Cavalry should be squishy and frontal cavalry charges should fail more often than not. Even with the new changes, cavalry should still be useful for faciliating breakthroughs by flanking distracted units or for harassment, right? Ideally our cavalry should not win the battle on their own, but should be able to do decisive damage if our infantry first gives them the opportunity to do so.
Red Rationalist
Spinning in eternity
- Location
- Andro-Orlando Hair Saloon
- Pronouns
- They/Them
I am more worried about squares being too strong against other infantry. Considering they have no rear, squares would end up overly strong in combat against other flanking infantry due to the square-shoot combo, with little in the way to break them. Reducing the total number of attacks isn't all that meaningful by itself compared to being immune from a charge or flanking from any direction. Loosing out on 1d100 in return for not taking a rear attack morale change is a pretty good deal, which kind of breaks infantry on infantry interactions due to your ability to deny the enemy a flank or move around you at the cost of loosing one attack. It is also a special order that makes your unit ignore facing while it's active, so some special rules seem rather appropriate.
And If we are interested in simulating napoelonic warfare, the square should be weak against other infantry lines. It should not be a competitive strategy when dealing with other infantry since 3/4ths of your infantry are looking in a different direction, with half of them being on the other side. If we are discussing immersion specifically, reducing the attack dice for a square is appropriate as the backline can't shoot their musket behind their back.
To be honest, I'm not sure if I am a fan of infantry being able to shoot twice anyways. It does make the difficult prospect of charging even more difficult for infantry.
Light cavalry wasn't great at that, but heavy cavalry was absolutely used for breaking infantry formations (for example, see the action of the Visula Legion Lancers at Albura against Colborne's first brigade in line). You need some softening beforehand (stress buildup), but cavalry was used to break an enemy line with a decisive enough charge. Cavalry is going to be heavily morale dependent there, but it would be wrong to purely regards them as flanking and breakthrough exploitation units.
Last edited:
Hmm, you seem to be talking about melee combat, but would the way to break squares not be to shoot them? If infantry in a line shoots twice or even three times at the square while the square only shoots once, that will end with the square losing a ranged engament against other infantry very quickly.
I agree, but my point is that it does shoot worse. A line shoots for 3d100 per turn or 2d100 if Braced or Moving, a Square only shoots for 1d100. Thats a 50% or 66% reduction in shooting damage!
1 AP Shoot is necessary, since Melee attacks also cost 1 AP and thus can be done three times. Otherwise Shooting will be inferior to Charge + Melee, and battles turn into melee slugfests and not lines exchanging musket fire. The question for me if there should be a special rule disallowing shooting three times, since that may be a bit much ranged damage. Then again, if you spend all your AP Shooting, you are not bracing or moving or readying actions.
From Wikipedia:
Under cover of the reduced visibility Latour-Maubourg launched two cavalry regiments at Colborne's exposed right flank. Ploughing through the unprepared British infantry, the 1st Vistula Legion Lancers and the 2nd Hussars virtually annihilated Colborne's first three regiments. Only the fourth, the 31st Regiment of Foot, was able to save itself by forming into squares.
So in this case, the heavy cavalry attacked unprepared (not Braced) infantry in the flank. This is decidedly not what I was discussing, I meant to say that frontal cavalry charges against Braced Infantry should not end well for the cavalry. You cannot really argue that such attacks are not possible under the current rules, since you proposed one such attack as part of your T1 plan this very battle.
Heavy cavalry hitting an unprepared infantry unit in the flank should be devastating, and the current rule changes that have been proposed do not change that. The cavalry still would get the Charge Advantage and the additional Morale Checks for Cavalry charge and flanking. The proposed changes are only intended to make getting into position for such an attack more difficult for the cavalry commander.
Last edited:
Did Square need formation maintaining action that will limit its ap to only 1 after they establish the square? Because if it is not The square in the next turn after squaring up will become veritable fortress that shoot 3d100, won't it?
I think one of the solution that can be used for balance is attack/fire with disadvantage or roll penalty. Say Square can only musket fire with disadvantage for example. Or roll with -20 to fire attack.
My thinking is that the unit in the Square would need to constantly use 2 AP to maintain the formation, yes. In that way it would work exactly as Brace currently does: a Unit only remains Braced for 1 Turn, then they have to Brace again to maintain the braced formation.
The system as it is now does not have "formations", it only has Orders and each Order either has an immediate effect or lasts only 1 Turn. This simplicity is good, a "Square Brace"-order should not change this.
Note that this is of course purely gameplay mechanics. From a story perspective, of course the Unit does not constantly reform the same square formation, they maintain it. But from a mechanics standpoint constantly spending 2 AP to apply the square is both simple and effective, since it requires no new rules and makes Units in square formation have less firepower and movement.
EDIT: This is an example on how the "Square Brace" Order could look:
"Square Brace (2 AP): Unit forms a square and prepares to receive an enemy charge. The Unit is considered Braced and it's Facing becomes omnidirectional for 1 Turn. It thus cannot be flanked. An Unit already engaged in melee cannot Square Brace. "
Last edited:
Red Rationalist
Spinning in eternity
- Location
- Andro-Orlando Hair Saloon
- Pronouns
- They/Them
They only shoot worse if the other side is using at least 2 actions on shooting. If the other infantry spends 2 AP moving, the damage done is on the same level as a normal line. Most forms of infantry interactions are not going to involve 2 units of infantry standing still mostly still and firing. Or if we take the simple case of a square formation ready firing on a infantry moving past it, the damage done against them would be comparable to an infantry firing line. Considering squares don't have facing, using an infantry formation to also fully deal damage against any infantry moving on by them in any direction is inappropriate in terms of modeling.
Squares weren't really good sentries against moving infantry, there was a reason line formations dominated the combat. Just comparing 2 static units of infantry shooting at each other isn't a good model for all parts of infantry interaction.
I mean, is there a reason shooting shouldn't be inferior to charging and melee? Shooting occurred at such close ranges that a charge was often far more decisive. And extended melee of using what is essentially a spear should be bloodier than shooting and reloading your musket, something which could take upwards of a 20 seconds during the Napoleonic era. You can stab a lot faster than firing with a musket and stabbing is also going to be generally more accurate.
Within the rules, I would view shooting as primarily a defensive tool, and one used for inflicting a bit more damage before the actual charge. If our units moved + shot, you would have a chance of inflicting a softening shock check before the proper charge, followed by charge + melee.
Fair. After looking through a list of cavalry versus infantry line engagements, those seemed to have generally been done by falling into a flank whenever possible, rather onto than charging the line directly. It's somewhat unfortunate this battlefield and the troops were to small for our units to do this here, I would have liked to see more conventional cavalry skirmishes and flanking.
This would make heavy cavalry an auxiliary formation for breaking a line, hitting them from a flank while the infantry pins the line down. And for this reason I think the damage of squares should be reduced, in order to keep them uncompetitive with infantry lines.
- Location
- Germany
- Pronouns
- He/She/They
The big advantage of shooting is that it means you can stay in whatever cover you currently occupy.
Charging the charge has been the superior choice in pretty much all iterations of the rules, but us wanting to stay in cover has meant that we had to sometimes do shooting or bracing instead to still take advantage of our cover.
On the Offensive I consider shooting useless, cause a long range shot doesn't deal effective damage and if you are in range for a short range shot you just should charge
Charging the charge has been the superior choice in pretty much all iterations of the rules, but us wanting to stay in cover has meant that we had to sometimes do shooting or bracing instead to still take advantage of our cover.
On the Offensive I consider shooting useless, cause a long range shot doesn't deal effective damage and if you are in range for a short range shot you just should charge
Red Rationalist
Spinning in eternity
- Location
- Andro-Orlando Hair Saloon
- Pronouns
- They/Them
I evaluated this the same way, though I think have found a way to actually use shooting on the offense if they just require 1 AP. If our units are at least 5 tiles away, you could move once and either 2*shoot at long distance or shoot and brace. Depending on how good the experience of our units is, this could add more morale checks at the cost of an additional turn of artillery fire on both sides. The subsequent turn you can 2*Charge + melee, which adds more damage. Since charges are reliant on the initial shock effect, halting a charge to deal more damage in total is actually beneficial, since that helps with creating weak points. Both sides take more damage, but I think the charging side benefits more from the stress buildup due to getting more morale checks by default.
Some rough math here: 3 long-ranged attacks on one unit deal on average 80 casualties, which is enough to deal one shock check. Combined with an assault next turn, you have a decent chance of creating a -1 to all morale tests. So the basic exchange is one shot + additional melee during charge versus taking more fire. Going through all the possibilities would take more time, but I think intermediate fire between the charge would actually be beneficial for experienced infantry with artillery parity. The exact trade depends on circumstances, but I can see a case where the exchange of fire benefits us due to getting more melee attacks after the charge, improving our odds of an initial rout. The deadliest part of a charge is the following turn with 3 enemy melee attacks, so a fire exchange to ensure infantry breaks during the initial attack can be worth it.
- Pronouns
- They/Them
I mean, personally to me it feels stupid that we wind up with a situation where most of the battle is a medieval melee that happens to occasionally have artillery. "It feels less fun and interesting to play" is a valid reason to change things, and so yes, I do in fact think that these battles should not be as absurdly melee heavy as you seem to think should be normal and ordinary.
It's both a bit silly and kinda really boring.
Red Rationalist
Spinning in eternity
- Location
- Andro-Orlando Hair Saloon
- Pronouns
- They/Them
So, to be constructive here: I don't think fun is a useful argument in general when it comes to discussing the mechanics here. Different people have different preferences they find fun and interesting, which are sometimes at odds with each other. Some people enjoy the pre-amble and positioning, some people like slow and extended artillery duels, some people like the anticipation If you find charges and melee engagements boring and I consider them one of the most interesting part of the battle, there isn't really anything to discuss beyond reiterating that this isn't fun for us and that we check out off planning during that part.
Considering the time frame this models, placing an infantry charge as one of the core mechanics for napoleonic warfare is by all count appropriate. French strategy placed a charge formation at it's core, so making a charge one of the key mechanics for winning a battle would make sense.
I mean, I still think this is completely fine? I think the fundamental issue is that we view the new AP system differently. The way I see is that a Unit has 3 AP. If you spend all 3 AP Shooting or Melee attacking, you do full damage (3d100). Anything less than that is less than full damage, because your unit was busy doing something else on their turn instead of reloading or aiming.
In other words, the way I "translate" the orders for infantry:
2 AP Move + 1 AP Shoot = this Unit rushes ahead, and after reaching their new position the first rank fires a quick volley. 1d100 damage.
1 AP Move + 2 AP Shoot = this Unit advances in formation. At their new position, they shoot in a controlled manner. 2d100 damage
3 AP Shoot = This unit shoots in a controlled manner, reloads, shoots again. 3d100 damage ("full damage")
Thus to me, it feels fine to me that the Unit prioritising movement over shooting does similar damage to the unit prioritising protection over shooting (in the square).
If the square Ready Fires, infantry moving carefully into shooting range to the square still does double damage compared to the square (Move + Shoot + Shoot) compared to the (Square + Ready Shoot). That is honestly fine for me? The problem would be next turn, when the square could in theory leave the square and go 3x Shoot or Charge the infantry. Hmm. Maybe there should be some inertia with the square, where leaving it also costs 1 AP or something? It feels odd if infantry can instantly go from a Square into a Charge of their own or reform their line "for free".
Yes, I basically agree with @The Laurent here. If Charge + Melee is always stronger than Shooting, then why give our soldiers muskets instead of swords or spears? Historically muskets were used because lines of infantry shooting at each other was an effective strategy. Battles did not immediately turn into pure melees.
Charge + Melee being superior in all situations also leads to less fun and varying gameplay. When no one strategy dominates, we players have more meaningful choices to make. There is a reason most strategy games fundamentally are based on some type of Rock-Paper-Scissors approach. Everything needs to have a counter, but what is currently the counter to the Charge + Melee + Melee strategy?
Ideally, I would like infantry combat to revolve around this kind of Rock-Paper-Scissors approach, where a Braced Unit beats a Charging Unit in melee, a Braced Unit loses to a Shooting Unit that is not Braced and a Charging Unit beats a Shooting Unit that is not braced. This would actually mean Brace + Shoot + Shoot would most likely be the safest play, and thus infantry combat would generally be two lines Shooting at each other until one weakens so much that a Charge becomes possible. However, you could vary this by having your line increase their damage output by 50% by forgoing Bracing for Shoot + Shoot + Shoot, at the cost of making your units more vulnerable to being charged next turn. This fits the Napoleonic warfare fantasy of lines of musketeers shooting at each other until one side charges the weakened enemy and also introduces meaningful choices ("do we intensify fire but drop our guard, risking an enemy charge? Is the enemy weakened enough for us to charge?")
Last edited:
- Pronouns
- They/Them
I find it highly unlikely that actually Napoleonic battles were mostly people just continually charging each other. And yes, we're not here to solely provide verisimilitude, but it honestly just feels really stupid and counter-intuitive to me that supposedly the way battles work is that you only shoot the enemy if you're stupid or on the defense.
Like, charges seem to me the culminating bit of an encounter, rather than "literally what every encounter is all the time."
Which is to say, while I was trying to write, Pinniped beat me to my vision of what I'd want encounters to be more like, and it's not a case where we're banning charging, lol.
Last edited:
- Location
- Derna
If we're back to arguing from realism, which is what this looks like, then it's important to note that this is wrong. Historians have looked at casualty records and they show that bayonet/sword wounds were pretty consistently around 1-2% of combat injuries from the 18th century through WW1. Most charges did not end in extended melees and even those that did were not extremely bloody because, well, all the same reasons that medieval combat wasn't horrifically bloody until one side broke. People are generally not trying to maximize lethality, they're trying to stay alive. They stay at a distance, they clump together, they focus more on protecting the people to their left or right than actually stabbing somebody.
Now, as I've said before, this might not actually need any kind of mechanical remedy even if you want realism. A good chunk of infantry fire-fighting happened within 100m. That falls under the framework of what we're already seeing with attack actions and such. But if someone's saying "I wish the Fire action were more useful" it doesn't make sense to say "that'd be unrealistic because infantry fire wasn't that important in linear gunpowder warfare" when the musket was always the main killing implement of the army.
- Pronouns
- They/Them
Honestly, from a semi-mechanical perspective, it could be interesting if the "melee" order was turned into "close attack" or something, to allow the QM to fluff/narrate parts of it as just close-range firefights, which indeed seem to have been more normal and significant than, "close range specifically bayonet fights."
E: Unless that name change has already happened, in which case apologies for missing it!
Last edited:
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Side note, we could use a tie-breaker. It's 2-2 right now.
Red Rationalist
Spinning in eternity
- Location
- Andro-Orlando Hair Saloon
- Pronouns
- They/Them
And I was arguing against the idea of exchanging fire being useless on the offense. Don't quite have the time for full math here, but with the dropping of AP to one, exchanges of fire should be viable. The main advantage being that doing damage before the charge proper has a chance of triggering shock checks, something that can be used to create weak points in the enemy line. Due to manual firing orders being less dispersed than ready fire, exchanging fire can make sense under the right conditions.
The issue is one of comparison here. Morale checks are more intrinsically tied to casualties due to constraints of the base systems, since morale systems are harder to model. The effective role of a charge in shattering morale is partially just their ability to inflict casulties. Unless we want to create a separate system of breaking during melee engagement that is just there to reduce melee casualties to a more historically correct level, there isn't a way to buff fire engagements without making them the dominant strategy or making parts of the morale system more complex for limited benefit.
Edit: If we are discussing what is the major killer of armies to model realistic casualties, disease should be absolutely rampant. I don't think accurately modeling causulties ratios is a sensible design aim.
Last edited:
Vote closed
New
- Location
- Finland
- Pronouns
- They/Them
[X] Plan Seize The Moment(um) with a Few Changes
Sure, why not?
Sure, why not?
- Location
- Finland
Yes, that's the idea. You become Engaged in Melee when you move into a Braced Unit's reach, regardless of if melee attacks are made or not. Thus, you'll automatically be hit with the extra Movement cost while there.
This is more or less the kind of results I'd like the mechanics to generate. As for the discussion if Firing while in Square should be penalized further, hmmh. I think being limited to max 1 Fire (due to Square Bracing taking up 2 AP while you're doing it) does mostly represent the limits of square fire well enough. I do think an Advantage for artillery Fire could be included for Square Bracing, since they were historically vulnerable to cannonfire.
A good chunk of infantry firefighting also occurred at ranges where they were almost totally ineffective, expending far more Munitions than our battles currently do. Sometimes they'd go at it for hours! If we wanted this to happen organically in this Quest, what would be the incentive? Generally this was because troops started shooting way too early out of stress and fear, but this veers back into taking control away from you, which is not desirable.
Sometimes Napoleonic battles saw prolonged musketry exchanges, sometimes one side would close quickly into melee. Both should be viable tactics, but the former would mean that battles can drag on for longer than I think you all like.
You're very right about the nature of melee. There are various changes that could be tested to try and emulate realistic melees better. We can increase the lethality of musketry and reduce that of melee. The latter could be accomplished by reducing the Wounding of melee attacks, but also by reducing the number of Hits a typical melee attack inflicts: for example, by decreasing the attacker's attack bonus by the defender's attack bonus, to represent the role of fighting skill and confidence in melee fighting.
If we rebalanced the killiness of melee vs ranged - since musketry is still very inaccurate but far deadlier, you have to balance the benefits of coming close and maximizing your Hits with the risk of being Charged (and receiving volleys).
But we then also want to have melees be rapid and decisive most of the time. The Morale Check from being Charged is one thing that attempts to model melees as a contest of morale and cohesion, but should melee attacks perhaps trigger Morale Checks on their own, too? I'm not sure that's the right direction to go, but it would mean that fighting in melee will break one or both rather quickly, even with lower Casualties. That could incentivise staying further out and shooting more.
The action is called simply Attack currently. It can certainly involve close-range shots going off, flavor-wise, but it doesn't expend Munitions mechanically. I'd also say that Firing while adjacent (which covers 0 to 100m, technically) also represents the kind of close quarters firefights that could happen in Napoleonic battles, but presently there's of course not so much incentive to do so (though with the planned changes, you can certainly Fire at 100m, then Attack, for example).
I'll be doing some testing with these possible changes before the update, so that may be delayed a bit!
Last edited:
- Pronouns
- He
[X] Plan Seize The Moment(um) with a Few Changes
I actually think this is really neat. It makes sense that more skilled fighters would be better able to defend themselves, and not just attack, in melee.
Melee attacks also causing morale checks also seems reasonable. Hand to hand combat is terrifying, and the soldiery of this time- especially inferior formation- were very unprepared, mentally and physically, to stand and fight it out. However, if the intent is to make melee less appealing, it does seem very counterproductive.
Last edited: