Débat sur les règles

[Grognard]_Marbot a écrit:Par contre, par deux fois sur mes canons nos adversaires du soir ont usé de la technique d'empilement d'unité "infanterie + cavalerie" pour toucher et mettre en déroute des canons avec 3 cavaliers alors que 47 sont bloqués 50 mètres plus loin .... .

Tu as le replay ?

Je suis en train de débattre avec les Lordz sur la création d'une liste "officielle" de cheats à proscrire : généraux en mêlée, traversée d'unités... et ce truc dont tu parles.

[Grognard]_Cosak a écrit:Tu as le replay ?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/epatp0sz0n3s53s/Giga.replay?dl=0

Sigiz = Anglais (côté gauche)
Marbot = Prussiens (côté droit)
Wym = Autrichien (partout)
Zara = Prussien (partout)

[Grognard]_Cosak a écrit: Je suis en train de débattre avec les Lordz sur la création d'une liste "officielle" de cheats à proscrire : généraux en mêlée, traversée d'unités... et ce truc dont tu parles.

Have to smile at that! A list of the lordz-recommended practices, if not simple in-battle rules, was asked repeatedly and imo is a loooooooooooooong due.

My short list would be:
- no general sniping (although loss of general isn't that critical with new moral system)
- no red-line camping
- no attack through own units
- no embedded artillery

But, I am afraid, even such a short list could be too radical for many. Anyway, good luck with that, Cosak!

Artillerie embarquée ? qu'est-ce ?

[Grognard]_Marbot a écrit:Artillerie embarquée ? qu'est-ce ?

Mettre une infanterie par dessus tes artilleurs pour les protéger, avec juste l'extrémité des canons qui dépasse de ta ligne.

[Grognard]_Cosak a écrit:Mettre une infanterie par dessus tes artilleurs pour les protéger, avec juste l'extrémité des canons qui dépasse de ta ligne.

Ah oui, à bannir également !

Stilgar (NBC) a écrit:
My short list would be:
- no general sniping (although loss of general isn't that critical with new moral system)
- no red-line camping
- no attack through own units
- no embedded artillery

My current draft is rather close. Points #1 and #4 are identical to yours. #2 and #3 is what experienced Marbot, and I, in most of N or BPA battles, pure cheats to my viewpoint.

1. Generals: must not be targetted by artillery or fight in melee
   
2. A unit must rout an enemy unit prior to attack what's behind
   
3. Infantry must not be used on purpose to spread your cavalry thin
   
4. While firing, artillerymen must not be intertwined with infantry
   

[Grognard]_Cosak a écrit:

1. Generals: must not be targetted by artillery or fight in melee
   
2. A unit must rout an enemy unit prior to attack what's behind
   
3. Infantry must not be used on purpose to spread your cavalry thin
   
4. While firing, artillerymen must not be intertwined with infantry
   

few comments, if I may.

[1] perhaps specifying "long-range artillery fire" would make more sense, for generals should be canister-ed without hesitation, if they dare getting that close to artillery
[2] this one sounds ambiguous: why cannot I just give the retreat order, go a bit around and attack that unit positioned behind?
[3] I se what you mean, but still not self-explanatory (think of beginners). On a general note "no attacking through own units" rule would cover a broader range of offenses (cav. attack on top of infantry and, at least to some extent, infantry blob attacks).
[4] why not "while unlimbered"?

Anyway, it's not simple, and opinions are as many as players. So, again, good luck with that. Even an imperfect set of house rules/recommendations is better than nothing.

Stilgar (NBC) a écrit:[1] perhaps specifying "long-range artillery fire" would make more sense, for generals should be canister-ed without hesitation, if they dare getting that close to artillery
[2] this one sounds ambiguous: why cannot I just give the retreat order, go a bit around and attack that unit positioned behind?
[3] I se what you mean, but still not self-explanatory (think of beginners). On a general note "no attacking through own units" rule would cover a broader range of offenses (cav. attack on top of infantry and, at least to some extent, infantry blob attacks).
[4] why not "while unlimbered"?

[1] OK
[2] In short: not walking through alive enemy units
[3] I don't want too strict rules, I aim to get rid of the current N and BPA systematic use of what they call "walking throu line cav" (WTLC)
[4] Because you can put infantry to defend guns when they're not firing, even unlimbered

edit: Cosak read already and said on lordz anyway no need to post same on a clan forum.

Lancier: it's clear that Wym's attack through squares is on purpose, and represents the worst kind of cheats in NTW3.

Also, killing general with cav has never been a bad trick. Anyone can kill my general, I won't complain. Many generals died during battles.

edit: Cosak read already and said on lordz anyway no need to post same on a clan forum.

Lancier a écrit:Very interesting debate gentlemen. So many goes on in these battles as we know as these are classic and not HBs, according to me. I think Marbot said about thin line front of cav ? sorry in the heat of the battle various happens if not on purpose.
These below are the ones i realised (I know most or ALL were not on purpose so i dont talk about them a fter battles !)

Lancier, you're right, but the images you show are units of Zarahustra and Wym, not mine.

thank you and to show that there were cheater in my team,

I am equal parts bemused and confused about the fact that there even is a discussion amongst the Lordz about rules.

First of all it's a bit ironic because the pot is calling the kettle black because as Lancier has shown you are not exactly strangers to using similar tactics yourselves if they benefit you. Nor do you have any qualms about setting up artillery two ranks deep so that one cannon fires through the cannon infront of it to make it easier to manoeuvre and protect. Marbot used guard mode & the higher weight of infantry even after my cavalry charge hit home shooting my cavalry into routing despite the fact that my cavalry in a realistic context would have pushed through due to mass and momentum, shouldn't he just have turned fire at will off and let his unit rout in the melee in the interest of accuracy & authenticity? Is it okay to use the smaller hitboxes of skirmishers in the line in order to increase the resilience of the line by drawing fire to the skirmishers first? So basically the common denominator for something that ought to be forbidden seems to be that it negatively affects you and your play style, while other dubious (unhistorical) behaviour can fly.

Secondly and this is the real issue at hand: these rules are unenforceable and they are completely arbitrary because we will be talking about magnitudes. How much cheese-grating is one strand of cheese too far? Should I be disqualified because my cavalry gets entangled  with my infantry when both units are moving out of the spawn? Should I be disqualified if the edge of my unit clips infantry (mine or the enemy's) while they are going through a gap for enemy artillery? Or will you then forbid people from trying to clip cavalry attacking artillery because that breaks your rules?

If you want change, change the incentives for behaviour through game mechanics. I have been arguing this for ages on the Lordz forum, but no one seems to like what I hear.

Hekko a écrit:Marbot used guard mode & the higher weight of infantry even after my cavalry charge hit home shooting my cavalry into routing despite the fact that my cavalry in a realistic context would have pushed through due to mass and momentum, shouldn't he just have turned fire at will off and let his unit rout in the melee in the interest of accuracy & authenticity? Is it okay to use the smaller hitboxes of skirmishers in the line in order to increase the resilience of the line by drawing fire to the skirmishers first?

Je suis désolé je ne comprends pas. Cosak, quel genre de situation parle t-il ?

Je parle d'instance quand vos infanterie a feu dans melee avec moi cavalerie. Vous n'est pas incluez en l'autre examples.

Well, that's the closest I manage in French.

It's hard to force players TO DO SOMETHING. It's not hard to stop using cheats. A mod such as NTW3 must be about tactic and strategy, not mastering those idiotic hardcore gaming tricks.

It's not hard to stop putting your cavalry behind your infantry line on purpose just to let few horsemen walk through and attack gunmen. Just admit this is a nasty trick and want to keep using it. Period.

I haven't seen the fire-in-melee you're referring too, Hekko. I can happen unwittingly, I hope this is what happened. Otherwise it's a also a nasty trick.

Peut-être la phase de jeu où l'on se bat dans la forêt, extrême droit du front. Entre les lignes, les carrés et les cavaleries tout autour, c'est certainement dû au jeu lui même.

Le fire-in-melee je ne sais pas faire. Mettre un bataillon dans une forme carrée sans en enclencher le "statut de Carré" peut tirer en mêlée car son carré virtuelle n'est pas brisé par le choc. Exemple des partisans espagnols de cosak face à ma cavalerie polonaise lors de notre fameuse partie du "Monstrueusementmégaaffreuxcampingconerdelamortquitue" ...

[Grognard]_Cosak a écrit:It's hard to force players TO DO SOMETHING. It's not hard to stop using cheats. A mod such as NTW3 must be about tactic and strategy, not mastering those idiotic hardcore gaming tricks.

It's not hard to stop putting your cavalry behind your infantry line on purpose just to let few horsemen walk through and attack gunmen. Just admit this is a nasty trick and want to keep using it. Period.

I haven't seen the fire-in-melee you're referring too, Hekko. I can happen unwittingly, I hope this is what happened. Otherwise it's a also a nasty trick.

You are missing your own point with the statement you are making. The game is about tactics and strategy, it's just that you dislike some tactics and want to ban them, instead of adapting to them. Hell, you're an excellent player and I am quite positive that you have adapted to them, but you dislike having to deal with some things more than others I would guess. Indeed, you are not even beyond using these game-y tactics yourself when they suit you.

It's not hard to stop doing that of course, but it's an effective (the only effective) way of killing artillery and the game as it stands gives you incentives to kill artillery that way.

There are two effective things that steer gameplay, 1) the mechanics of the game and 2) general attitude. You have control over the first one being a Lord etc. and while I do not know your stance on issues on the Lordz forum the Lordz collectively have incentivised cheese-grating so you have made your bed now lie in it. The second one is out of your control, and any amount of "rules" in the world will not put it within your control, indeed, even if you have hubris enough to post "rules" you will only end up confusing new players in their first few games if they actually take it as gospel.

Hekko a écrit:You are missing your own point with the statement you are making. The game is about tactics and strategy, it's just that you dislike some tactics and want to ban them, instead of adapting to them. Hell, you're an excellent player and I am quite positive that you have adapted to them, but you dislike having to deal with some things more than others I would guess. Indeed, you are not even beyond using these game-y tactics yourself when they suit you.

Laughable comment. Why would I dislike it? I am not an artillery player, so these tricks should be good news for me. I know how to do them, but I don't use them because I am not a hardcore gamer ready to click 100 times to move through an enemy unit. This would be a disgrace.

Hekko a écrit:It's not hard to stop doing that of course, but it's an effective (the only effective) way of killing artillery and the game as it stands gives you incentives to kill artillery that way.

It's not my problem if this is one's only way to seize guns. For now you're only finding an excuse.

Hekko a écrit:There are two effective things that steer gameplay, 1) the mechanics of the game and 2) general attitude. You have control over the first one being a Lord etc. and while I do not know your stance on issues on the Lordz forum the Lordz collectively have incentivised cheese-grating so you have made your bed now lie in it. The second one is out of your control, and any amount of "rules" in the world will not put it within your control, indeed, even if you have hubris enough to post "rules" you will only end up confusing new players in their first few games if they actually take it as gospel.

So wrong, again. Battle mechanics cannot be 100% modded. It's very, very, very far from that and Avon can confirm it. Unlimited artillery ammo, insta-squares, crossing units... all this cannot be prevented (even if we have hacking ideas). It's not a Lordz choice, it's the NTW engine.

I never saw new players using tricks. Only some clans' players.

Don't you use the "no gen snipe" rule? Aren't your usual allies mad when their general is killed? You have rules...

[Grognard]_Cosak a écrit:

Laughable comment. Why would I dislike it? I am not an artillery player, so these tricks should be good news for me. I know how to do them, but I don't use them because I am not a hardcore gamer ready to click 100 times to move through an enemy unit. This would be a disgrace.

On the basis of the statement that you are not an artillery player you essentially are saying that this is a non-issue for you. Easy fix, since you do not bring artillery it won't be cheesegrated. Since your main concern is not the power of the move but the unhistorical aspect it is now sorted, since you can hardly claim to be offended by things in games you are not present in, and it won't happen in games you are present in due to you not having artillery.

Thus any rule business is just you trying to impose your visual preferences on everyone else, which seems a bit pompous, doesn't it?

[Grognard]_Cosak a écrit:It's not my problem if this is one's only way to seize guns. For now you're only finding an excuse.

Tsk tsk. Your (The Lordz) design choices have created the situation, yet you blame people for playing the game according to the incentives you have provided. This is almost as comical as Hollande acting outraged and surprised after wealthy people moved abroad when he introduced his mega-tax on the wealthy.

[Grognard]_Cosak a écrit:So wrong, again. Battle mechanics cannot be 100% modded. It's very, very, very far from that and Avon can confirm it. Unlimited artillery ammo, insta-squares, crossing units... all this cannot be prevented (even if we have hacking ideas). It's not a Lordz choice, it's the NTW engine.

I never saw new players using tricks. Only some clans' players.

Don't you use the "no gen snipe" rule? Aren't your usual allies mad when their general is killed? You have rules...

You fail to grasp the point. Sure you cannot mod everything, but you can incentivise everything. Besides, the cheesegrater is your doing due to the heavier infantry weights. And the click-trough is possible due to slower cavalry resolutions that you introduced in V3. And they are being used due to the smaller hitboxes of artillery as well as the more powerful canister as well as the less powerful cavalry.

New players will not be surprised by this, since these things are run of the mill moves in vanilla. If you introduce a rule like this though they will be surprised when it happens against them.

Yeah, everyone essentially uses a no general sniping rule, as well as no France and UK on the same team. However, that is an organic part of the community that is not based on your laundry list of dislikes. Even the no general sniping rule is not entirely clear cut, as you can see by the argument about hunting the general with cavalry or not.


That was a nice video that you now have edited out. What I see is you crossing/charging your unit of danish cavalry through your artillery to keep it safe against a legitimate charge from the Würtembergian cavalry and then crying foul when he counters your game-y tactic by using one in return.

Ontop of that I see the cheesegrater not working, since there is a max range to it, so the Swedish cavalry was pointlessly milling about in the line.

And from the gameplay point of view everything is fine, the gun crew survived despite the desperate efforts of the cavalry. So indeed, your own game-y tactic proved decisive in conjunction with running the crew away.

Hekko a écrit:On the basis of the statement that you are not an artillery player you essentially are saying that this is a non-issue for you. Easy fix, since you do not bring artillery it won't be cheesegrated.

You are a smart guy, how come you don't understand my point? Even if one has never been robbed, it doesn't mean you can't be against robbery. Same here: I could see those tricks so many times, even in our infamous 3v3 (against the Poles). I wasn't the victim, but I still consider it idiotic.

Hekko a écrit:Thus any rule business is just you trying to impose your visual preferences on everyone else, which seems a bit pompous, doesn't it?

When Lordz released v3.5 with its slowly accelerating cav for the first time, all players were against in the beginning. Was it pompous from Lordz to impose that, or was it just a will to make battles more realistic?

Thinking that no unit must cross an enemy unit is not pompous, it's just being aware that is against any warfare common sense. It's a pity NTW engine allows it (a glitch), but it's even worse players want to use it at all cost.

Hekko a écrit:Your (The Lordz) design choices have created the situation

No, it can be done on the vanilla too.

Hekko a écrit:not based on your laundry list of dislikes

Believe me, I am not the only Lordz who despises hardcore gaming tricks. And many new players on the mod are surprised NTW3 community uses more glitches than in the vanilla or WoW, and they give up quickly.

Hekko a écrit:What I see is you crossing/charging your unit of danish cavalry through your artillery to keep it safe against a legitimate charge from the Würtembergian cavalry and then crying foul when he counters your game-y tactic by using one in return.

That's exactly how Austrians protected their guns in Wagram, or Russian in Borodino, etc. Artillerymen even sometimes left their guns to hide behind dragoons, then came back after a threat was repelled.

Legitimate cavalry charge? Walking through enemy dragoons?

The artillerymen are routed in the end.

Anyway odds are thin this will work, using glitches seems too important for many. So I have already lost this debate.

edit: Cosak read already and said on lordz anyway no need to post same on a clan forum.

Look at what I wrote:

[Grognard]_Cosak a écrit:So I have already lost this debate.

Everyone is welcome to keep using these lame tactics, especially walking through enemy cav to get the guns behind. Frontal assault, use of glitches, what great a strategy.

I apologize for striving for more realistic (yet far from perfect) battles.

I hope general sniping and gen charging guns will spread in the community. Then I'll see you complaining against this lack of rules.

edit: Cosak read already and said on lordz anyway no need to post same on a clan forum.