PDA

View Full Version : Guns Look like they fire way too fast...



Stiler
1st Sep 2004, 16:28
Just watched the high res video.

First off, YAY it's about time someone did a good rts in this time period. Been wanting one for a longggggg time. sucked to have to keep playin RON or somethig and sticking to that era in the game.

However one thing that just kinda nitpicked me, it looks as those the rifles are firing way too fast, almost like they are some semi auto gun or something?

It just doesn't look very realistic in terms of how they fired back then.

Plus, it seems too "in sync" when they fire.

ON a battlefield back then when they were told to fire, the sound has to travel down to line (and yes sound > time can affect things, even in a very small way). So what would happen is when they yelled Fire, the line would shoot and have almost a "wave" affect, it wasn't a big difference, but it was noticeable a tad bit.

It looks like in the video they all fire excatly right on the dot to the milisecond.

Lonewulf44
1st Sep 2004, 16:40
While, I did not mind the actually rate of fire, in the video...I don’t think its too bad an idea to have just a slight variation in a formations firing. It would add just a bit of effect if not allot but a few of the troops in a formation or line fired a bit slower or faster than the rest. Nothing huge. but.....

Again as for rate of fire, I'm for realism, but I don’t want my troops taking 60 seconds to reload and fire twice! 3 if your lucky......so there does have to be some balance.

Long Live Prussia!

Stiler
1st Sep 2004, 16:43
I agree , but it'd be nice to at least include a more "realistic" type. Maybe make it an option?

one for the arcadey folks and one for the realism people.

I'd like to at least have them fire, then actually have the reload and everything, take a good solid 10seconds at minimum i think it might work....and still give it a "look" better of the time period then what it looks like now (3'ish seconds or so it looked like)

Lonewulf44
1st Sep 2004, 23:43
I think thats a good solution...10 seconds sounds about right....just seeing the reload goes a long way. Plus....it would open up a new feature or element as....if the line in front of your troops is reloading...now would be a good time....to...ummm....errr CHARGE!!!!


Long Live Prussia!

Arctic_Wolf
2nd Sep 2004, 18:05
Bear in mind that the trailer has been sped up in places and is an early build of the game engine so the game will have changed from what was seen in that version.

Also about the wave of firing, I don't think its a good idea, it might make things seem more realistic but its just one more thing for a computer to have to calculate and while I'm not into arcadey games, I'd be willing sacrifice a bit of realism for a good performance. What they probably could do however is staggered firing, where only some troops fire at a time and while they're reloading another lot fires, keeping the enemy under near-constant fire. I'm unsure if this is a tactic practiced then but I know it was done during England's Second Civil War.

Willmore
2nd Sep 2004, 18:15
Here are some tactics:

1st row fires, while second reloads, 2nd row fires over the shoulder of 1st, while 1st reloads.

Another one, is a tactic the brits perfected. Platoon or volley fire. Where a regiment fires by companies, 1st thru 8th in consecutive order, and when the last one fires, the first one has already reloaded, creating a consecutive fire.

Arctic_Wolf
2nd Sep 2004, 18:20
Didn't they have three rows? The first Knelt on one knee, the second stood and the the third over the shoulder, or was that pikemen?

Willmore
3rd Sep 2004, 02:19
It varried from 2 to 3, depending on how defensive you wanted to be.

Nizze
4th Sep 2004, 11:45
from the begining of the napolionswar the line were 3 men deep but som time before waterloo the englishmen started to only have 2 men deep lines becuse the soliders reloded sofast that the last line were not necicery.The frenchmen still used a three men deep line during waterloo but i don´t know if they changed it after the battle. .

Stiler
4th Sep 2004, 22:13
Originally posted by Arctic_Wolf
Bear in mind that the trailer has been sped up in places and is an early build of the game engine so the game will have changed from what was seen in that version.

Also about the wave of firing, I don't think its a good idea, it might make things seem more realistic but its just one more thing for a computer to have to calculate and while I'm not into arcadey games, I'd be willing sacrifice a bit of realism for a good performance. What they probably could do however is staggered firing, where only some troops fire at a time and while they're reloading another lot fires, keeping the enemy under near-constant fire. I'm unsure if this is a tactic practiced then but I know it was done during England's Second Civil War.

Whoa, i posted a reply in here but it seems to have gone missing? :eek:

Anyways, why not have the delay? i mean it's really not something that's really going to be taht much of a huge strain on the computer, since basically it'll still be processing the same info, but just at a different time then all the guns firing at once(one could argue that the gun sall firing at once would be more demanding on the system then the fewer at a single time)

Honestly, it would just mean implementing it a little more coding time to do it, i'd really appericate it if it was in there, as i'm sure other people would.

It just seems a tad bit distracting to see all the guns fire like they are all in sync with each other or something.

Arctic_Wolf
5th Sep 2004, 19:10
Originally posted by Stiler
Anyways, why not have the delay? i mean it's really not something that's really going to be taht much of a huge strain on the computer, since basically it'll still be processing the same info, but just at a different time then all the guns firing at once(one could argue that the gun sall firing at once would be more demanding on the system then the fewer at a single time)

Honestly, it would just mean implementing it a little more coding time to do it, i'd really appericate it if it was in there, as i'm sure other people would.

I'm sure most people wouldn't notice unless someone said so, it just seems to me to be unnecessery number-crunching. If the framerate drops below 26(The minimum to make the illusion of movement) because of it then no one will want it in. If a programmer of whatsit could come and say "This feature would not make any difference to the game's performace, even on the minimum spec. PCs" then fine, have it. I just don't want to have to get the latest supercomputer to run it.

Mastalerz
29th Sep 2004, 02:14
A well trained troop could usually get 2-4 shots a minute. British had a tactic that was widley spread in Europe that was already talked about in the thread so I won't bother explaining it. This tactic although great in Europe was terrible in America especially against the French & Indians durring the F&I War.

The_Russian_Rocket
29th Sep 2004, 22:52
If the army it well trained the can fire that much "in sync". Plus when told to fire yes the first line would be a "wave effect" but it would take the same amount of time for all troops behind that line to get to the front making an "in sync" shot. Plus a wave would be just to time consuming as Arctic_Wolf said.

Mastalerz
1st Oct 2004, 00:49
Some if not many battles were also fought by each man firing followed by a bayonet charge. Hopefully you will have the option to bayonet charge, but from what I've seen from this game already it would be almost a shock that they would not add something that major.

lebo47
3rd Oct 2004, 19:59
well, i agree that the firing animations could be a bit less arcadey, but how can you determine reload times from the trailer? you only see the units fire once before it switches to a different scenario thingie. the only part that could be confused with seeing a reload time is in the beginning, when one line shoots and immediately another line of troops runs up behind them and shoots.

Lonewulf44
7th Oct 2004, 01:04
Originally posted by Mastalerz
Some if not many battles were also fought by each man firing followed by a bayonet charge. Hopefully you will have the option to bayonet charge, but from what I've seen from this game already it would be almost a shock that they would not add something that major.


I completly second this! Its almost a must for the game to have teh bayonet charge! The 'cold steel' was an esssential part of battles at the time.


Long Live Prussia!

Vic Flange
13th Oct 2004, 13:50
Different units will reload at different speeds, depending on how skilled they are. The firing is roughly in synch (as units fire on command) but slightly staggered to add realism. If every man were to fire at exactly the same time they would look like robots.

And yes, bayonet charges are in the game.

CaptTermiteUSN
2nd Nov 2004, 23:05
ReLoad rates for batteries of cannon should be expected to vary based on some basic variables such as casualties among individual gun crews, damage to the guns, blocked targets, casualties amongst gun captains and division officers ,fatigue of the gunners and the morale and skill level of the crews. It would be interesting to have the ability to hold fire and fire by battery, as in firing a full broadside on a ship, or to order fire at will which would let better, faster crews deliver more rounds.

BTW, hope those Total War players that didnt want to use cannon because they actually cause devastating damage dont start that row again. Cannon are wonderful and handling them well or fighting in their presence is an art. They are an reality of warfare in this period.

Vic Flange
16th Nov 2004, 10:28
Things like skill, fatigue, blocked targets all feature. For ships, firing rates will reduce as the crew are killed (experience is also a factor here).