Go on a first-person tour of War of Rights’ Civil War battlefields

What would it have been to fight — and perhaps die — on one of the famous Civil War battlefields? The multiplayer War of Rights is trying its hardest to answer that question by throwing players right into the midst of first-person combat that includes long-range and short-range encounters.

In a new video put out by the team, alpha footage has been pieced together to give fans a taste of the experience that this game delivers. It’s easy to see that this isn’t your conventional shooter-type experience, as the rate of fire is very slow (with long, mandatory reloading animations), the aiming unsure, and the gunpowder smoke obscuring line-of-sight.

A careful observer might notice that more than a few “TKs” — team kills — happen in this video. Guess War of Rights has friendly fire turned on, so make sure you only go to battle with trusted companions at your back!

SHARE THIS ARTICLE
Code of Conduct | Edit Your Profile | Commenting FAQ | Badge Reclamation | Badge Key

8
LEAVE A COMMENT

Please Login to comment
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most liked
Subscribe to:
Reader
Melissa McDonald

This iconic scene comes to mind.
“I want these men trained properly!”

Reader
Melissa McDonald

graphics look great, strong on realism. I guess my only question would be, did men really just stand up and present easy targets in this war? I would be lying prone and firing, especially with no barricade.

Friendly fire adds a lot to games like this, i think it’s a good idea.

Reader
Loyal Patron
Armsbend

That is the discipline of a well trained unit. If everyone breaks rank, lies down and does what they want the unit is ineffective and everyone literally dies. It wasn’t any different in ancient warfare and it isn’t any different today.

Take the Battle of Thermopylae (what the movie 300 is about). The Spartans were a legendary trained unit – the reason they were effective is that they created their phalanx wall – which, coupled with their superior armor, was technologically superior to the Persians at the time. If one man broke – the turtle shell fell apart – everyone dies. It is why they stacked up 1000s of bodies (really happened). They still study the battle as the prime example of discipline at West Point.

In this era of rifle warfare – where the bullets were not particularly accurate or consistent in any way – you created a “wall” of bullets fired at the enemy. That is why you had men standing and kneeling – in a staggered pattern to take up as much surface area as possible with lead.

If you were lying down you’d hit nothing but dirt or fire wildly into the sky. You’d be useless. It took guts.

Reader
Loyal Patron
Byórðæįr

snicker ^^ that person has no idea. the sharps carbine is more accurate than the M16 at 400 yards. using the movie the 300 is least accurate movie he could have chosen.

actually military guys who are going to be operational in combat have do what is called a low crawl you hold a rifle in front of you and you can not raise up more than six inches.

Reader
Loyal Patron
Byórðæįr

The US Army is famous for not walking the wall in combat as presenting an volley fire is effective for breaking armies of un thinking minons but not very effective when ever fence and door post is your friend. I forget who said that during the civil war but basically they fought from fence line to fence line, they used hills and culverts (clean water drainage) for cover and there were only two or three battles that were stand up and slug it out battles. Mostly because one army would be caught in the open marching some where by enfield fire from two or more sides and retreat would have cost more lives.

But practically you lean against a fence or something so that when the enemy is aiming through incoming fire they look for simply shapes that represent people. If you can not tell if the target is a hat on a fence post of some crouching behind the fence with a coat draped over it then you aim for the easy target to identify. Most people have trouble pulling the trigger when the other end is a person. The incoming fire usually eliminates that effect which is what makes combat so horrifying. Video games are good at taking horror and making it a cartoon that you are attacking that is going to respawn, heal or get back up. If it had included the broken and bleeding bodies screaming for their wives, mothers and children, it would be too realistic and not fun. As a large sand table it is like a more complex game of chess.

Usually someone brings small action tacits into a game like this and runs into all kinds of silliness when they can not figure out how to coordinate the small action tacits into a larger picture. The north and south used military intelligence tacits book at the start of the war and it was the start of the usa digging up paul revers old revolutionary war code books and the creation of con-intel troops called signals intel that caused the war to be more confusing. One army would march from their winter quarters to where they were fighting over a stategic point and would run into the enemy at some point and have to dirvert to another location and the combat would end a moving combat where van guard would stop and provide covering fire for the rest of the army until they were the rear guard then they would run to where the next unit had stopped to provide covering fire.

In the video you have at most maybe fifty people fighting without unit cohesion. Half of the units on both sides were like that and the other half were usually re-enforced regular units that had fired their rifles more often and under stood battle field movement and terrain. The fact most of the people testing the game don’t actually know the military tacits actually makes it more realistic to what a mess the civil war was. You have to remember that the civil war was mustering of normal people it was mostly people called up to defend their homes, the values of the side they were on, and in the south many people were press ganged into service and it was march and maybe die or refuse and be shot.

Real tacits would have them using a telescopic sight usually a brass tube to find the enemy then moving from ground they held with skirmisher out in a line withing sight until they got in range of accurate fire then the lead rank taking a knee and the second rank placing their muskets on the shoulder of the first rank. If cover was possible most would run for the cover first then create wider spaced group so a cannon or gatlin gun could not take them all out at once. So you would see a five foot gap between soldiers when cover was available and an arm’s length when marching so that they could march the width of the road for the fastest movement. The final game should be interesting as the lower tier of backers get in and the actions become more of one army verse another instead of less than a platoon shooting at another small group.

Reader
Melissa McDonald

Battling native Americans taught the colonials (and subsequent generations) how to use cover and fight a guerilla war instead of the Napoleonic-era idea of a line of marching men trying to take ground.

Helped the colonials defeat the British, although the French Navy sure did their part.

Cadaver
Reader
Loyal Patron
Cadaver

I could really get into this game, but on the evidence of this video I’d try to keep my team-mates at a safe distance. Getting bayonetted in the arse by my own company while clambering over a fence isn’t exactly the most heroic of endings.

Reader
drgreenhoe

A game like this would be fun to me for only a few hours. I would tire of doing the same thing over and over. On the other hand, I only saw a brief part of the game.