Statistics

Users
3486
Articles
156
Articles View Hits
1530508

Re: Expanded Toolbar - Grog

2 years 8 months ago #271 by mcaryf

  • Regimental Commander
  • Regimental Commander

  • Posts: 235
  • Thank you received: 109

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • Replied by mcaryf on topic Re: Expanded Toolbar - Grog
    Hi Rob
    The whole purpose of modding is to add variants and in some cases improvements to standard games or scenarios so that people want to keep on playing them.

    The reason I have requested the change to the divisional square formation is so that the AI can be improved rather than to make it easier for human players - a better AI equals a more interesting challenge for players. Coding AI routines can be quite complicated as obviously you can only surmise what situation the AI side might be facing. Having a reasonably good general purpose defensive stance against both cavalry and infantry attack that you can implement quickly would be a benefit. The current divisional square formation with the squares effectively blocking the divisional artillery line of fire is not too difficult for a human player to unscramble but would be much harder to code into the AI routines. It is also in line with history as Wellington had his artillery located in with his squares.

    In your videos you have identified quite a few design flaws in the standard scenarios, for example the mistaken classification of one of the objectives as being a hold rather than a way point in the Ligny Battle scenario playing as the French. It is a very simple mod to correct that. With your knowledge of all the scenario weaknesses it could be very helpful if you produced some modded versions yourself.

    Regards

    Mike

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    2 years 8 months ago #272 by Didz

  • Grunt
  • Grunt

  • Posts: 40
  • Thank you received: 21

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • Replied by Didz on topic Re: Expanded Toolbar - Grog

    mcaryf wrote: It is also in line with history as Wellington had his artillery located in with his squares.

    I would suggest you avoid using Waterloo as a reference for this sort of historical assumption. The orders issued by Wellington to his artillery commanders at Waterloo, were certainly not normal historical practice, nor were they in line with accepted tactical doctrine, and there is plenty of evidence that in practice they were largely ignored by the artillery officers on the ground.

    In fact, Wellington was so annoyed with the failure of the artillery to comply with his stupid orders that he refused to approve medals for any of the British artillery officers present or to sanction their pensions. I believe Mercer was one of the few battery commanders who actually did keep his guns with the squares, and even he ignored Wellingtons order to shelter within the squares when the cavalry attacked recognising that the nearby square of Brunswickers which was composed mostly of children would almost certainly panic and dissolve if they saw his men running towards them. He remained in position purely because it was protected by a low bank and difficult for the French cavalry to assault. Most other batteries were withdrawn to the rear as soon as the French cavalry began their attacks, because squares cannot protect guns.
    The following user(s) said Thank You: Jean Lafitte, DarkRob

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    2 years 8 months ago - 2 years 8 months ago #273 by DarkRob

  • Regimental Commander
  • Regimental Commander

  • Posts: 315
  • Thank you received: 282

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • Replied by DarkRob on topic Re: Expanded Toolbar - Grog

    mcaryf wrote: Hi Rob
    The whole purpose of modding is to add variants and in some cases improvements to standard games or scenarios so that people want to keep on playing them.


    I understand that, but these mods need to be self contained. For instance, theres nothing wrong with you releasing your own mod with all the game changes and changes to the toolbar you like. But that's not what you're asking, you're asking Reb to make changes in the official updates to the grog toolbar that arent meant for the stock game. That's whats not cool because these changes have nothing to do with the stock game and so shouldn't be made to the official grog toolbar, but only to the toolbars within your mod.

    mcaryf wrote: The reason I have requested the change to the divisional square formation is so that the AI can be improved rather than to make it easier for human players - a better AI equals a more interesting challenge for players. Coding AI routines can be quite complicated as obviously you can only surmise what situation the AI side might be facing. Having a reasonably good general purpose defensive stance against both cavalry and infantry attack that you can implement quickly would be a benefit. The current divisional square formation with the squares effectively blocking the divisional artillery line of fire is not too difficult for a human player to unscramble but would be much harder to code into the AI routines. It is also in line with history as Wellington had his artillery located in with his squares.


    But you aren't thinking about how it affects the stock game or the stock scenarios. Again, take a look at Mt. St. Jean: "Sabers vs Bayonets". Your one button divisional square/guns formation invalidates any challenge at all and would turn that scenario into a 1 button win. And as for your argument that it would make the AI better and the game more challenging, well what if the AI used your formation in Mt. St. Jean: "Sans Infantry"? Now that scenario becomes unwinnable because there is no way to accomplish your objective of capturing the three batteries and the objectives because they would now be behind enemy infantry squares.

    Again you aren't thinking about the stock game at all, just your mod, but yet you're asking for changes that would directly affect the stock game without giving any thought to it at all. Im sorry but that's wrong man. Change the grog toolbar all you want, that's fine, but keep it as part of your mod so to avoid making changes to the real grog toolbar that either don't need to be there, or maybe shouldn't be there.

    Also we can leave the history discussion out of this completely. It has no bearing at all on game balance. It doesn't matter if historically Wellington had artillery that could target the moon. It only matters if it works in game, and Im far from convinced it would without seriously unbalancing some scenarios.

    For instance is 30,000 points reasonable to achieve a French major victory in the full battle of waterloo scenario given the excessive casualties they are likely to take in your mod? Do you know? Do I know? Probably not, because it probably hasn't been playtested to the degree it should be.

    What about the british score of 100,000 points? Is that still reasonable? They practically get that in the stock game just by holding the objectives throughout the whole 9 hour scenario. Now lets tack on all the extra points they will get from having artillery that basically fire canister out to the French main lines. Have you ever noticed the amount of points canister can generate over time? Its enormous. They might hit 100,000 points 4 hours into the scenario.

    All these types of things get affected just by changing one thing about artillery. Have you given due thought to that? Have you tested it? Retested it? Adjusted anything besides giving the British super guns in a game that wasn't initially designed for that? And yet you want Reb to start implementing changes to the official toolbar based on your mod? Does this make sense?

    mcaryf wrote: In your videos you have identified quite a few design flaws in the standard scenarios, for example the mistaken classification of one of the objectives as being a hold rather than a way point in the Ligny Battle scenario playing as the French. It is a very simple mod to correct that. With your knowledge of all the scenario weaknesses it could be very helpful if you produced some modded versions yourself.


    Because modding is in many ways changing the game to suit your own taste. How could I claim to be an expert at defeating the games scenarios when Im tweaking them to my specifications to begin with? And then am I to expect that 100 plus subscribers are going to follow suit and download my homemade mod that's better because I say it is? I mean you've already got Didz in here who disagrees with a lot of what you say, so whos to say you're right and hes wrong or hes right and you're wrong? Not me. Im just a video game player, not a historian. There has to be a gold standard to go by and the stock game is it. Now we can all agree about the things that aren't right in the stock game, but at least those things are the same for all of us. I cant do a video series if everyone is using wildly different versions of the game.

    Its bad enough I had to start out my series by convincing people how bad the stock toolbar is and pushing them to use the grog toolbar. It would have been better if the Grog toolbar was the stock toolbar to begin with. No, the game is not perfect, yes it has some flaws, many of which Ive never even revealed in my video series because it wasn't necessary. But it is the game we all bought, and it is the standard version of the game. My series was designed to help new players get into the game and learn the mechanics of it, not how to mod.

    (Also with regard to the Namur road objective in "The Eagle Triumphs" I never flat out said it was a mistake. I suspect it is, but theres no way I can know for sure because I didn't write the thing. It may be that the scenario writer wrote it that way for a reason, or had something else in mind, or didn't expect a player would base his whole strategy on just getting to that objective while ignoring everything else about the battle. I cant say for sure, and it would be somewhat arrogant of me to go changing it without at least having some idea of what the scenario writer was thinking when he designed it that way)
    Last edit: 2 years 8 months ago by DarkRob.

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    2 years 8 months ago - 2 years 8 months ago #274 by Didz

  • Grunt
  • Grunt

  • Posts: 40
  • Thank you received: 21

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • Replied by Didz on topic Re: Expanded Toolbar - Grog

    DarkRob wrote: I mean you've already got Didz in here who disagrees with a lot of what you say, so whos to say you're right and hes wrong or hes right and you're wrong?

    I'm afraid i have to agree with DarkRob, and as he says after spending most of my life studying Napoleonic combat tactic's and the battle of Waterloo in particular I don't agree with your assessment of Napoleonic tactical doctrine or the actual events that occurred during of the battle. Consequently, if I were pressing for changes they would be very different to yours. But I recognise that my views are not in line with the accepted historical propaganda which was contrived after the battle and presented to the British public at the time and have been passed on to today through historical plagiarism. I only really stick my nose in to these conversations when asked to do so, or provoked by some obvious inaccuracy.

    One thing that is perfectly plain from the correspondence of all parties present at Waterloo was that their behaviour and tactical doctrine was largely driven by what we might today call 'accepted best practice', rather than any sort of scientific understanding. For an officer of this period to deviate from 'accepted best practice', was for him to risk censure from his peers and possible banishment from the military and society in general. Therefore the behavior of troops on the Napoleonic battlefield was largely predictable based upon the accepted practice of the nation and period, even if to our modern eyes it seems stupid or ineffective.

    Exceptions such as the order to try and keep the artillery with the squares, and the bayonet charge of the 7th Line against a unit of French Dragoons, were just that, exceptions, and notable enough to be highlighted in the correspondence produced at the time and thus picked up by historians.

    The vast majority of the correspondence confirms that the officers on both sides played their roles according to the rules. Infantry formed square whenever threatened by cavalry. The cavalry then attempted to provoke them into wasting their fire by demonstrating against the squares, whilst supporting artillery and infantry were rushed forward to destroy them.

    That was largely what happened at Waterloo, despite what the British version of the battle claims. That was what Blucher and Bulow saw happening to the Allied centre and what promoted Blucher to break with tactical Prussian tactical doctrine and order Zeiten to advance and rescue the Allied centre before his corps was fully formed. That was also what numerous other officers saw and later recorded all along the Allied front in the mid-afternoon including the Prince of Orange who in the infortunate position of being the only surviving senior Allied officer in the centre of the Allied line and thus faced with the problem of trying to drive off the French skirmishers supporting the French cavalry and has been ridiculed by British historians for his efforts ever since.

    In fact, Wellington was one of the few officers who was not to be aware of the imminent collapse of the Allied position because he was trapped in a square on the reverse slope of the ridge behind Hougoumont and couldn't see, or do, a thing.

    In fact the Allied army had been in a state of almost complete tactical paralysis for much the afternoon, largely because Uxbridge had spent the British cavalry against D'Erlon's Corps and had nothing on hand to fend off the French. Not helped by the fact that Wellington had failed to agree with the Prince of Orange that the Netherlands Cavalry would be under his command, and so they ignored him and fought their own battle.

    I'm convinced that if Napoleon had actually supported Ney's assaults on the Allied centre he would probably have won the battle, and it is a real act of providence that at that precise moment his nerve failed him and his faith in Ney wavered and he refused to make that final commitment that might have secured his victory before the Prussians could intervene.
    Last edit: 2 years 8 months ago by Didz.
    The following user(s) said Thank You: Jean Lafitte, r59

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    2 years 7 months ago #275 by RebBugler

  • NSD Designer
  • NSD Designer

  • Posts: 3900
  • Thank you received: 1984

  • Gender: Male
  • Birthdate: 07 Feb 1948
  • Update version 5.7...

    - Addition of Infantry Division level formation 'Artillery between Squares'
    - Edited the Infantry Division level 'Squares' formation so battalions don't overlap

    Division Square formation fixed, no overlap of battalions


    'Artillery between Squares' formation, view from the left flank (new formation button located in the lower right corner of the formations window)


    'Artillery between Squares' formation, view from the center to the right flank


    'Artillery between Squares' formation, view from the rear center


    Just from its structure I feel this formation will make a nice addition to the SOW arsenal. Thanks go to Mike for the addition, he convinced me of its worthiness. Sorry Mike, that other formation you suggested would take a custom OOB mod to make it work, so is not Grog Toolbar friendly.

    I understand Dark Rob's concerns about new formations such as this and their affect on the scenarios. So, before releasing this update I tested the scenario used as a "one click formation to Victory" example. I tested the scenario twice with 'one click' moves and suffered a Defeat twice. There might be a one click Victory formation move possible, but I'll leave that for someone else to find. Still, I highly doubt it because that scenario in question, Sabers vs Bayonets, is my scenario. And there 'ain't no way' anyone is going to beat one of my scenarios with a one click formation move, regardless of the formations design.

    The Grog Toolbar is designed to aid player control of this game, formations being an important part of that control. Since SOW has included all the historical formations possible, the Grog Toolbar has moved on by adding 'better player control' custom formations, many have been added since the game has been released. Varying custom formations simply translate to better options of control by requiring less micro management, leaving the player more time for strategy, and less time struggling with unit positioning.

    One more concern mentioned about this new formation, the AI using it to affect scenario outcomes. Not by my observations. I have never seen the AI use a division formation short of the initial setup. Furthermore, I have only seen the AI use three brigade formation groups in the unitglobal file, the formation groups of Line Fight, Move, and Assault.

    Expanded Toolbar - Grog Waterloo
    Bugles & Flags Gettysburg - Toolbar, Flags, Scenarios and more...
    __________________________________
    In remembrance:
    Eric Schuttler "louie raider" (1970 - 2018)
    John Bonin "2nd Texas Infantry" (1977 - 2012)
    Attachments:
    The following user(s) said Thank You: skelos

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    2 years 7 months ago #276 by mcaryf

  • Regimental Commander
  • Regimental Commander

  • Posts: 235
  • Thank you received: 109

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • Replied by mcaryf on topic Re: Expanded Toolbar - Grog
    Hi Reb

    Many thanks for doing this it looks very good and I will try it out soon.

    If I want to try to call this divisional formation from within my scenario coding for the AI side can it be done from the formtype command and what reference would I use to point to the specific formations in your mod's unitglobal file?

    Regards

    Mike
    The following user(s) said Thank You: RebBugler

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    2 years 7 months ago #277 by DarkRob

  • Regimental Commander
  • Regimental Commander

  • Posts: 315
  • Thank you received: 282

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • Replied by DarkRob on topic Re: Expanded Toolbar - Grog

    RebBugler wrote: And there 'ain't no way' anyone is going to beat one of my scenarios with a one click formation move, regardless of the formations design.


    Is that a dare or a double dare?
    The following user(s) said Thank You: RebBugler

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    2 years 7 months ago - 2 years 7 months ago #278 by RebBugler

  • NSD Designer
  • NSD Designer

  • Posts: 3900
  • Thank you received: 1984

  • Gender: Male
  • Birthdate: 07 Feb 1948
  • mcaryf wrote: Hi Reb

    Many thanks for doing this it looks very good and I will try it out soon.

    If I want to try to call this divisional formation from within my scenario coding for the AI side can it be done from the formtype command and what reference would I use to point to the specific formations in your mod's unitglobal file?

    Regards

    Mike


    I don't know what you're asking but here's the unitglobal info: The formation is listed in column AO (formtype:13); Division formations are listed on rows 20-25.

    Good luck with your mod, mods are key to any game's longevity and NSD made sure that WL is highly modifiable, more so than GB.

    Expanded Toolbar - Grog Waterloo
    Bugles & Flags Gettysburg - Toolbar, Flags, Scenarios and more...
    __________________________________
    In remembrance:
    Eric Schuttler "louie raider" (1970 - 2018)
    John Bonin "2nd Texas Infantry" (1977 - 2012)
    Last edit: 2 years 7 months ago by RebBugler.

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    2 years 7 months ago #279 by RebBugler

  • NSD Designer
  • NSD Designer

  • Posts: 3900
  • Thank you received: 1984

  • Gender: Male
  • Birthdate: 07 Feb 1948
  • DarkRob wrote:

    RebBugler wrote: And there 'ain't no way' anyone is going to beat one of my scenarios with a one click formation move, regardless of the formations design.


    Is that a dare or a double dare?


    Neither, just covering my ass. Seemed like the diplomatic solution at the time since things were getting somewhat unfriendly and I felt it was a neutral route to take to comply with a request without taking sides. Did it work?

    Expanded Toolbar - Grog Waterloo
    Bugles & Flags Gettysburg - Toolbar, Flags, Scenarios and more...
    __________________________________
    In remembrance:
    Eric Schuttler "louie raider" (1970 - 2018)
    John Bonin "2nd Texas Infantry" (1977 - 2012)
    The following user(s) said Thank You: DarkRob

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    2 years 7 months ago #280 by DarkRob

  • Regimental Commander
  • Regimental Commander

  • Posts: 315
  • Thank you received: 282

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • Replied by DarkRob on topic Re: Expanded Toolbar - Grog

    RebBugler wrote:

    DarkRob wrote:

    RebBugler wrote: And there 'ain't no way' anyone is going to beat one of my scenarios with a one click formation move, regardless of the formations design.


    Is that a dare or a double dare?


    Neither, just covering my ass. Seemed like the diplomatic solution at the time since things were getting somewhat unfriendly and I felt it was a neutral route to take to comply with a request without taking sides. Did it work?


    Oh man, I guess my sarcastic sense of humor doesn't come across so well in text, that quote was from a movie and ive always wanted to use it and that seemed like the perfect time, it was only meant as a joke. You know Ive always been very supportive of everything you've done for the game and how much I love the Grog Toolbar.
    I still don't necessarily agree with putting this formation in the game, but having seen it now, I don't think its that bad. In my mind I envisioned it was going to be a one button fortress formation. The fortress is a formation I created awhile back and what Mike was describing sounded very similar. The fortress is a broken formation because the AI has no idea what to do against it and invariably will just walk or gallop up to it and get itself slaughtered. Your formation is different, but not to different. All it will really do is make creating the fortress a lot faster. And as long as its there Il be happy to abuse it.

    I wasn't trying to be unfriendly and I don't think Mike was either. I may not agree with everything as far as his point of view on the game goes. But I don't question his love of the game and I thought we were just two wargamers discussing our different points of view. I never meant any of it as a personal attack and I hope he knows that. I certainly never took anything he said personally, just as a difference of opinion.
    The following user(s) said Thank You: RebBugler

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    2 years 7 months ago #281 by Didz

  • Grunt
  • Grunt

  • Posts: 40
  • Thank you received: 21

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • Replied by Didz on topic Re: Expanded Toolbar - Grog
    It's obviously good from a gaming viewpoint even if its not in keeping with the tactical doctrine of the period.
    The following user(s) said Thank You: RebBugler

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    2 years 7 months ago #282 by mcaryf

  • Regimental Commander
  • Regimental Commander

  • Posts: 235
  • Thank you received: 109

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • Replied by mcaryf on topic Re: Expanded Toolbar - Grog
    Hi Reb

    I have tried it out as the French and the British with somewhat mixed results. I had not fully considered the variety of sizes for divisional structures. However, when playing Ligny I tried Friant's division of Imperial Guard and he had two attached artillery units and these were placed at either end of the set of squares. I tried Pecheux's division and the artillery seemed to want to position itself somewhat to the front of the squares and fairly well to the left. The British unit seemed to behave as I would expect. I will try a few more variants and will remove all mods except your tool bar.

    I am sorry about my questions re the formtype command, I thought that was involved with special formations. I will have a go picking up the references in your drills.csv file: thus form:DRIL_Lvl4_Inf_Squares_FR would be for the French.

    Regards

    Mike
    The following user(s) said Thank You: RebBugler

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    2 years 7 months ago #283 by RebBugler

  • NSD Designer
  • NSD Designer

  • Posts: 3900
  • Thank you received: 1984

  • Gender: Male
  • Birthdate: 07 Feb 1948
  • mcaryf wrote: Hi Reb

    I have tried it out as the French and the British with somewhat mixed results. I had not fully considered the variety of sizes for divisional structures. However, when playing Ligny I tried Friant's division of Imperial Guard and he had two attached artillery units and these were placed at either end of the set of squares. I tried Pecheux's division and the artillery seemed to want to position itself somewhat to the front of the squares and fairly well to the left. The British unit seemed to behave as I would expect. I will try a few more variants and will remove all mods except your tool bar.

    I am sorry about my questions re the formtype command, I thought that was involved with special formations. I will have a go picking up the references in your drills.csv file: thus form:DRIL_Lvl4_Inf_Squares_FR would be for the French.

    Regards

    Mike


    Batteries flanking squares results when there are more batteries in the Division than Infantry Brigades. For this formation to be most effective the player must know the makeup of the Division and detach Batteries when necessary before executing this formation to prevent them from being positioned and exposed on the flanks.

    Expanded Toolbar - Grog Waterloo
    Bugles & Flags Gettysburg - Toolbar, Flags, Scenarios and more...
    __________________________________
    In remembrance:
    Eric Schuttler "louie raider" (1970 - 2018)
    John Bonin "2nd Texas Infantry" (1977 - 2012)

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    2 years 7 months ago #284 by mcaryf

  • Regimental Commander
  • Regimental Commander

  • Posts: 235
  • Thank you received: 109

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • Replied by mcaryf on topic Re: Expanded Toolbar - Grog
    Hi Reb

    I notice that the artillery between squares entries in the Drills.csv file exist for the French and the Allies, which uses British Squares, but they do not specifically have one for Prussians. I have tried the "British" formation and that does seem to work. However, I have noticed a slightly strange effect in that during play if I use the Toolbar to give a Prussian Division Commander an order to use that formation he will often ignore it until I give him a different formation order to start his units moving and then change it to the artillery in squares formation and then it works. At the moment I am trying to recreate the situation when the Prussian 15th Brigade of Bulow's Corps arrived in the Paris wood an hour or so before the next Brigade from IV Corps. It seemed to me that artillery between squares formation might be a sensible one for the AI to adopt in case Domon or Subervie's cavalry came calling!

    On a different topic I was experimenting with using the diagnostic feature to show the zones of control created by units. When I took a cavalry squadron and put it into skirmish format the "tiles" it controlled actually went down from 3 to 1. My main interest in cavalry as skirmishers was to see if they could offer some sort of extended protection to batteries as their graphical representation certainly extends across 2 adjacent batteries. It seems, however, that their real influence could actually be less. Thus I think I can definitely confirm that I am not requesting that cavalry formation at the squadron level.

    Regards

    Mike
    The following user(s) said Thank You: RebBugler

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    2 years 7 months ago - 2 years 7 months ago #285 by Didz

  • Grunt
  • Grunt

  • Posts: 40
  • Thank you received: 21

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • Replied by Didz on topic Re: Expanded Toolbar - Grog
    Unlike the British and French it appears that the Prussians did have designated formations for larger bodies of troops. David Nash includes the brigade formations in his book on the Prussian Army 1808-1815, which includes the brigade formation for an attack.

    The pre-1813 formation for a brigade about to make an attack shows a skirmish line deployed to the front supported by the brigades two Fusilier battalions to their rear (one would assume that the skirmish line itself was provided by the third rank of both battalions)

    To their rear the brigades five musketeer battalions are shown in column of divisions (the two flanking columns consisting of two battalions and the centre consisting of one battalion) with the brigades foot artillery companies deployed on either flank.

    To their rear a further musketeer battalion and the combined grenadier battalion cover the intervals between the musketeer columns, and behind them covering the intervals are three columns of the brigades cavalry each consisting of 4 x squadrons in column of half-squadrons with the brigades two horse batteries bringing up the rear of the central column.

    A variation of this formation is shown suggesting an alternative that would have been employed if the brigade was opposed by enemy cavalry. In this variation the skirmish line has been recalled and the Fusilier battalions have been withdrawn through the musketeer columns to form on the flanks of the reserve line formed by the single musketeer battalion and the grenadiers. The positions of the artillery are not shown in this diagram and I assume that in keeping with normal tactical doctrine it has been withdrawn to the rear to protect the guns, although Nash doesn't confirm this in his notes.

    The same diagram appears as Figure 132 in 'Imperial Bayonets' which is probably where Nash copied it from. Nafziger has added notes on the intervals between the lines of the formation as 150 paces and 50 paces between the skirmish formation as its supports. He also confirms that the artillery would normally be deployed to the rear of the formation and only brought forward once the opposing infantry was locked in a firefight.
    Last edit: 2 years 7 months ago by Didz.
    The following user(s) said Thank You: RebBugler

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    2 years 6 months ago #286 by DarkRob

  • Regimental Commander
  • Regimental Commander

  • Posts: 315
  • Thank you received: 282

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • Replied by DarkRob on topic Re: Expanded Toolbar - Grog
    @Reb Bugler

    Hi Reb, so I was talking with Hook over on the steam forum and he introduced me to the Z-Key(the zoom function)which for some reason I never knew about. Probably because Ive always been enamored with the spyglass on the grog toolbar. However the spyglass has one glaring limitation that the zoom function doesn't. The camera can still be rotated while using the zoom function, but cannot be rotated when using the spyglass. Could you possibly do one last update to the grog toolbar allowing us to use the spyglass while still being able to rotate the view? I realize I could just use the zoom function instead, but I like the spyglass so much more when playing hits because of the immersion it adds to the game, which is basically my reason for playing HITS to begin with.

    Pretty please with a cherry on top?

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    2 years 6 months ago #287 by RebBugler

  • NSD Designer
  • NSD Designer

  • Posts: 3900
  • Thank you received: 1984

  • Gender: Male
  • Birthdate: 07 Feb 1948
  • DarkRob wrote: @Reb Bugler

    Hi Reb, so I was talking with Hook over on the steam forum and he introduced me to the Z-Key(the zoom function)which for some reason I never knew about. Probably because Ive always been enamored with the spyglass on the grog toolbar. However the spyglass has one glaring limitation that the zoom function doesn't. The camera can still be rotated while using the zoom function, but cannot be rotated when using the spyglass. Could you possibly do one last update to the grog toolbar allowing us to use the spyglass while still being able to rotate the view? I realize I could just use the zoom function instead, but I like the spyglass so much more when playing hits because of the immersion it adds to the game, which is basically my reason for playing HITS to begin with.


    Right click hold toward the bottom of the screen and pan away. A tool tip pops up notifying of the area providing this function.

    Expanded Toolbar - Grog Waterloo
    Bugles & Flags Gettysburg - Toolbar, Flags, Scenarios and more...
    __________________________________
    In remembrance:
    Eric Schuttler "louie raider" (1970 - 2018)
    John Bonin "2nd Texas Infantry" (1977 - 2012)
    The following user(s) said Thank You: DarkRob

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    2 years 6 months ago #288 by DarkRob

  • Regimental Commander
  • Regimental Commander

  • Posts: 315
  • Thank you received: 282

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • Replied by DarkRob on topic Re: Expanded Toolbar - Grog

    RebBugler wrote: Right click hold toward the bottom of the screen and pan away. A tool tip pops up notifying of the area providing this function.


    Cant believe I never noticed that before haha. You're the man Reb, thanks.
    The following user(s) said Thank You: RebBugler

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    2 years 5 months ago #289 by jlan5031

  • Grunt
  • Grunt

  • Posts: 74
  • Thank you received: 22

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • DarkRob,
    I don't know how to reach any better than this method. I just watched your Chancellorsville video from 2017. As far as I can tell, it's the latest Gettysburg video on the internet. I watch and like your videos but prefer GB games to WL. Won't you please add a GB video once in awhile?
    The following user(s) said Thank You: RebBugler, DarkRob

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    2 years 5 months ago #290 by DarkRob

  • Regimental Commander
  • Regimental Commander

  • Posts: 315
  • Thank you received: 282

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • Replied by DarkRob on topic Re: Expanded Toolbar - Grog

    jlan5031 wrote: DarkRob,
    I don't know how to reach any better than this method. I just watched your Chancellorsville video from 2017. As far as I can tell, it's the latest Gettysburg video on the internet. I watch and like your videos but prefer GB games to WL. Won't you please add a GB video once in awhile?


    More and more people have been asking for this so I may have to break down and do it. I have to confess though, after getting into napoleonics with Scourge of War Waterloo, civil war combat by comparison seems rather simple and uninteresting to me now.

    However, I'm also very grateful for the viewers and subscribers I've gotten since starting the channel, and if they want something bad enough I don't want to not do it.

    So I probably will do another civil war Scourge of War video soon. I'll have to give it some thought because if I'm going to do it, I want to do something suitably epic.
    The following user(s) said Thank You: RebBugler, Jean Lafitte

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    2 years 4 months ago #291 by Capt Saucier

  • Grunt
  • Grunt

  • Posts: 49
  • Thank you received: 14

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • I bought the collectors edition and the problems with cavalry that I posted in the general discussion area seem to have gone away.

    However, I cannot get the latest version of the Grog Toolbar to work. I have downloaded the new version from the link above, then saved in my downloads folder and used 7-zip to extract it into the mods folder. After I extract, when I look at the file directory under Mods I see: a directory called Expanded Toolbar V - Grog. Under that I see Graphics, Layout, Logistics and Scenarios all with dates of 6/1/2018. I looked under logistics and see Drills Mod 3/5/18.

    When I go to the game, under mods, I get 3 choices 1. Expended Toolbar Grog 3. Full French Campaign 3. Toolbar expanded- Grog. When I start the game and go to mods and check box 1. Expanded tool bar grog I see the explanation that it was the version 5.4 that came with the Collectors Edition. I cannot seem to get the new version to work in the game. I am sure I am doing something wrong. Do I need to delete the old version first? I thought the new version would just replace it and it appears to be in the folder. Any help would be appreciated!
    The following user(s) said Thank You: RebBugler

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    2 years 4 months ago #292 by roy64

  • Regimental Commander
  • Regimental Commander

  • Posts: 225
  • Thank you received: 64

  • Gender: Male
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • Replied by roy64 on topic Re: Expanded Toolbar - Grog

    Capt Saucier wrote: Do I need to delete the old version first? I thought the new version would just replace it and it appears to be in the folder. Any help would be appreciated!


    Did you uncheck the Expanded Toolbar - Grog?

    I just deselected the Expanded Toolbar - Grog & checked the Expanded Toolbar V - Grog & had no problem.

    Leicestershire #freetommy
    The following user(s) said Thank You: RebBugler

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    2 years 4 months ago - 2 years 4 months ago #293 by Didz

  • Grunt
  • Grunt

  • Posts: 40
  • Thank you received: 21

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • Replied by Didz on topic Re: Expanded Toolbar - Grog

    Capt Saucier wrote: I bought the collectors edition and the problems with cavalry that I posted in the general discussion area seem to have gone away.

    However, I cannot get the latest version of the Grog Toolbar to work. I have downloaded the new version from the link above, then saved in my downloads folder and used 7-zip to extract it into the mods folder. After I extract, when I look at the file directory under Mods I see: a directory called Expanded Toolbar V - Grog. Under that I see Graphics, Layout, Logistics and Scenarios all with dates of 6/1/2018. I looked under logistics and see Drills Mod 3/5/18.

    When I go to the game, under mods, I get 3 choices 1. Expended Toolbar Grog 3. Full French Campaign 3. Toolbar expanded- Grog. When I start the game and go to mods and check box 1. Expanded tool bar grog I see the explanation that it was the version 5.4 that came with the Collectors Edition. I cannot seem to get the new version to work in the game. I am sure I am doing something wrong. Do I need to delete the old version first? I thought the new version would just replace it and it appears to be in the folder. Any help would be appreciated!

    Including the Grog Toolbar in the original steam download was a nice idea that simply doesn't work. Like you I was left scratching my head over what was wrong, and when i finally worked it out I created a mini-guide for other purchasers that explains how to use mods with SoWWL.

    How to use MOD's with Scourge of War Waterloo.

    I think the main thing to check in your case is the section on 'Where to put your Mod's' as this folder needs tidying up after downloading the game from steam and installing your mods to get rid of the dross.

    You may also need to check the section on prioritisation and make sure that your mods are loading in the order you require.
    Last edit: 2 years 4 months ago by Didz.
    The following user(s) said Thank You: RebBugler, Capt Saucier

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    2 years 4 months ago #294 by Capt Saucier

  • Grunt
  • Grunt

  • Posts: 49
  • Thank you received: 14

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • Roy

    I do not see a choice that says "Expanded Tool Bar V Grog. I have only the 3 choices that came with the Collector's Edition - 1. Expanded Tool bar - Grog 2. Full_French_Campaign 3. Toolbar Expanded- Grog.

    I see in the Mods Folder that I have "Expanded Toolbar V - Grog. When I click on that I see Graphics, Layout,Logistics,Scenarios all with last dates of 6/1/2018, that date I downloaded and tried to extract the file. I looked under Logistics and saw, for example, Drills Mod dated 3/5/2018.

    Somehow what is in the mods folder is not showing up when I start the game itself. I thought that version 5.4 of the Expanded Toolbar Grog would be replaced by Expanded Toolbar V - Grog, but instead only Expanded Toolbar Grog shows up, with an explanation that it is version 5.4, the version that came on the disc.

    Perhaps I should extract to the Mods folder itself instead of extracting to "Expanded Toolbar Grog?

    Thanks for any suggestions.
    The following user(s) said Thank You: RebBugler

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    2 years 4 months ago - 2 years 4 months ago #295 by RebBugler

  • NSD Designer
  • NSD Designer

  • Posts: 3900
  • Thank you received: 1984

  • Gender: Male
  • Birthdate: 07 Feb 1948
  • Capt Saucier

    I believe that the way STEAM handles Modifications is what's at issue here. The bottom line solution is to have only one toolbar enabled and prioritized below all other enabled mods in the Modifications 'in game' window.

    I can't believe that original 'Toolbar Expanded' version is still showing up. It was supposed to have been totally eliminated with the first patch as it had CTD issues. With that patch it was announced officially that it was replaced by the latest version that's available with this thread, first post. The 'Expanded Toolbar' available through the 'Collectors Edition' should be issue free but is already two updates behind, I recommend deleting it and use only the latest version as posted on the first post of this thread.

    I think all that extracting to and from folders is messing things up. Just manually copy-paste the latest unzipped Grog Toolbar (Expanded Toolbar V - Grog) to the Mods folder, then enable in Modifications. To avoid confusion just delete all other versions of the Grog Toolbar from the Mods folder.

    Sorry for this late response but I figured the other responses from forum members were clearing things up...A Big Thanks to Hook, roy64 and Didz. Hopefully I've set things straight now, but we'll see by your next post. Regardless, we'll get it cleared up.

    Expanded Toolbar - Grog Waterloo
    Bugles & Flags Gettysburg - Toolbar, Flags, Scenarios and more...
    __________________________________
    In remembrance:
    Eric Schuttler "louie raider" (1970 - 2018)
    John Bonin "2nd Texas Infantry" (1977 - 2012)
    Last edit: 2 years 4 months ago by RebBugler.
    The following user(s) said Thank You: roy64

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    2 years 4 months ago - 2 years 4 months ago #296 by Didz

  • Grunt
  • Grunt

  • Posts: 40
  • Thank you received: 21

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • Replied by Didz on topic Re: Expanded Toolbar - Grog
    I can't remember what version was shipped with the Steam, as I deleted it once I realised it didn't work, and replaced it with the latest version I downloaded separately. But I do know that the version provided by steam did not include any of the User Scenario's that come with the full version.
    Last edit: 2 years 4 months ago by Didz.
    The following user(s) said Thank You: RebBugler

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    2 years 4 months ago #297 by Capt Saucier

  • Grunt
  • Grunt

  • Posts: 49
  • Thank you received: 14

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • Reb,

    Finally success! I have the disk version of the Collectors Edition. I first deleted the old versions, both Expanded Toolbar - Grog and Toolbar_Expanded_Grog. I left the Full_French_Campaign. Then I copied the Zip file above from my downloads folder to the mods folder. At first nothing worked. Then I extracted the zip file. This showed the option in the game, but did not mention the update in the description. I tried checking it then hit the button. However, the game itself did not have the grog toolbar, but I believe the old toolbar that came with the game. At that point, the Mods folder had Grog Toolbar V and the zip file in it. I deleted the zip file, then started the game. I went to the mods tab and moved the grog toolbar to the top choice. Then I saw the description of 5.7 update. I checked the box and hit the button and voila! the game started with the updated toolbar.

    I am writing this in case anyone else has a similar problem and also to remember it myself!

    Thanks to all for the help.
    The following user(s) said Thank You: RebBugler

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    2 years 4 months ago #298 by Jean Lafitte

  • Grunt
  • Grunt

  • Posts: 167
  • Thank you received: 34

  • Gender: Male
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • Didz wrote:

    DarkRob wrote: I mean you've already got Didz in here who disagrees with a lot of what you say, so whos to say you're right and hes wrong or hes right and you're wrong?

    I'm afraid i have to agree with DarkRob, and as he says after spending most of my life studying Napoleonic combat tactic's and the battle of Waterloo in particular I don't agree with your assessment of Napoleonic tactical doctrine or the actual events that occurred during of the battle. Consequently, if I were pressing for changes they would be very different to yours. But I recognise that my views are not in line with the accepted historical propaganda which was contrived after the battle and presented to the British public at the time and have been passed on to today through historical plagiarism. I only really stick my nose in to these conversations when asked to do so, or provoked by some obvious inaccuracy.

    One thing that is perfectly plain from the correspondence of all parties present at Waterloo was that their behaviour and tactical doctrine was largely driven by what we might today call 'accepted best practice', rather than any sort of scientific understanding. For an officer of this period to deviate from 'accepted best practice', was for him to risk censure from his peers and possible banishment from the military and society in general. Therefore the behavior of troops on the Napoleonic battlefield was largely predictable based upon the accepted practice of the nation and period, even if to our modern eyes it seems stupid or ineffective.

    Exceptions such as the order to try and keep the artillery with the squares, and the bayonet charge of the 7th Line against a unit of French Dragoons, were just that, exceptions, and notable enough to be highlighted in the correspondence produced at the time and thus picked up by historians.

    The vast majority of the correspondence confirms that the officers on both sides played their roles according to the rules. Infantry formed square whenever threatened by cavalry. The cavalry then attempted to provoke them into wasting their fire by demonstrating against the squares, whilst supporting artillery and infantry were rushed forward to destroy them.

    That was largely what happened at Waterloo, despite what the British version of the battle claims. That was what Blucher and Bulow saw happening to the Allied centre and what promoted Blucher to break with tactical Prussian tactical doctrine and order Zeiten to advance and rescue the Allied centre before his corps was fully formed. That was also what numerous other officers saw and later recorded all along the Allied front in the mid-afternoon including the Prince of Orange who in the infortunate position of being the only surviving senior Allied officer in the centre of the Allied line and thus faced with the problem of trying to drive off the French skirmishers supporting the French cavalry and has been ridiculed by British historians for his efforts ever since.

    In fact, Wellington was one of the few officers who was not to be aware of the imminent collapse of the Allied position because he was trapped in a square on the reverse slope of the ridge behind Hougoumont and couldn't see, or do, a thing.

    In fact the Allied army had been in a state of almost complete tactical paralysis for much the afternoon, largely because Uxbridge had spent the British cavalry against D'Erlon's Corps and had nothing on hand to fend off the French. Not helped by the fact that Wellington had failed to agree with the Prince of Orange that the Netherlands Cavalry would be under his command, and so they ignored him and fought their own battle.

    I'm convinced that if Napoleon had actually supported Ney's assaults on the Allied centre he would probably have won the battle, and it is a real act of providence that at that precise moment his nerve failed him and his faith in Ney wavered and he refused to make that final commitment that might have secured his victory before the Prussians could intervene.


    I've just now discovered this post as well as your other post about how most of the British artillery battery commanders refused the order to temporarily abandon the guns and hide in a square when enemy Cav approached. Thanks very much for your insight.

    One thing that constrains the game as a whole is the fact that the original release of the game on the 200th anniversary of the battle was EXTREMELY rushed in order to make that deadline. The result of this haste is that some errors were built into the game. I'm not sure whether all errors have been corrected, but, some have.
    The following user(s) said Thank You: RebBugler

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    2 years 4 months ago - 2 years 4 months ago #299 by Didz

  • Grunt
  • Grunt

  • Posts: 40
  • Thank you received: 21

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • Replied by Didz on topic Re: Expanded Toolbar - Grog

    Jean Lafitte wrote: I've just now discovered this post as well as your other post about how most of the British artillery battery commanders refused the order to temporarily abandon the guns and hide in a square when enemy Cav approached. Thanks very much for your insight.

    Not really an insight, more a case of reading what the people who were there wrote happened, rather than just what Wellington said he ordered.

    Mercer was one of only a few battery commanders who left their guns in place during the French assault, and even he ignored Wellington's order to abandon them and shelter in the nearby square of Brunswickers. He states in his journal that looking at the petrified state of the children forming this square he concluded that if his men had abandoned their guns to ran towards it for shelter the whole battalion would probably have panicked and disbanded.

    So, he held his position and his men stayed at their guns throughout, fortunately the low bank in front of his battery and the steep slope beyond protected his guns from being overrun.

    Jean Lafitte wrote: One thing that constrains the game as a whole is the fact that the original release of the game on the 200th anniversary of the battle was EXTREMELY rushed in order to make that deadline. The result of this haste is that some errors were built into the game. I'm not sure whether all errors have been corrected, but, some have.

    Well from my own testing and experience the AI does a pretty good job of coordinating the behaviour of cavalry and infantry, and I've seen cavalry and infantry tactic's in my games that mimic both the WRG tabletop rules and the tactical doctrines described in books like Imperial Bayonets.

    Where the AI seems to fail badly is in its use of artillery. I've yet to see any combined arms cooperation between artillery and cavalry, or artillery and infantry, and the AI seems to treat artillery as nothing more than a static bombardment arm, often leaving it completely unsupported and vulnerable too. I suspect this is because that was how artillery was used in the ACW, and nobody found the time to change the AI before the launch of the game.

    So, we basically have ACW artillery tactic's being employed alongside Napoleonic infantry and cavalry tactic's, which doesn't really work very well. The artillery really ought to be providing close and mutual support to the infantry and/or cavalry. But without switching off the AI by using the TC button that's almost impossible to achieve, and so far I've never seen the AI even attempt it.
    Last edit: 2 years 4 months ago by Didz.
    The following user(s) said Thank You: RebBugler, Jean Lafitte

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    2 years 3 months ago - 2 years 3 months ago #300 by RebBugler

  • NSD Designer
  • NSD Designer

  • Posts: 3900
  • Thank you received: 1984

  • Gender: Male
  • Birthdate: 07 Feb 1948
  • Update, version 5.75, includes the addition of functions made available by the 1.03 patch:
    -Command buttons added enabling artillery to target cavalry
    These commands are added to the existing 'targeting pop up windows' on the battery and gun levels


    -Infantry battalion 'Screening action' button added
    This battalion level command 'action' is coupled with the Guard command (now a pop up window) next to the Volley command

    -Aattach and Adetach command buttons added. These are officer functions that either attach or detach all subordinate units.
    Execution button located next to the "Zoom" function button
    Aattach functions as designed, however, Adetach has issues by my testing (all units won't detach). Please verify this issue and if verified justify rationale for retaining this flawed function, otherwise I'll be omitting Adetach with another update in a week. Personally I see no need for Adetach anyway whereas Aattach is a handy gameplay function and especially vital for scenario scripting.

    The Screen Command

    This was the testing time consumer with this update. At first I tried to give some player control to it by at least providing formation options...Rejected. Because, Screen turns a battalion into a giant 'Split' battalion which characteristically defaults back to skirmish mode regardless of player input. When I finally realized the nature of this beast I took on the tasks of hiding and elimination of functions on the battalion 'split' toolbar that would only delay and confuse the player with misfiring commands.

    Screening Battalion Upsides:
    - Very effective at screening and delaying the progress of enemy infantry with little or no player input.
    - While screening infantry it avoids too many casualties by constantly attacking and then retreating to avoid flanking fire and melees...I never witnessed it forced into a melee.
    - Very effective at driving enemy artillery away while receiving minimal casualties.

    Screening Battalion Downsides:
    - While it will delay cavalry initially, it will eventually be routed or captured because it won't form a square...Just like 'split' skirmish btns. To avoid eventual DOOM player must cancel Screening actions (same initiation button transformed to Cancel...) when cavalry contact is imminent.
    - Fatigue happens fast because unit runs almost constantly balking at player control. Then there's attacking and retreating constantly...Unit refuses to let up, continuing to attack even in an exhausted state.

    As mentioned, there will be an update in a week probably eliminating Adetach. Meanwhile, please feedback this week to correct any other issues revealed with this update. Also any suggestions to help fine-tune the 'Screening Actions Toolbar' like eliminating useless or distracting buttons would be appreciated.

    Cheers :)

    Expanded Toolbar - Grog Waterloo
    Bugles & Flags Gettysburg - Toolbar, Flags, Scenarios and more...
    __________________________________
    In remembrance:
    Eric Schuttler "louie raider" (1970 - 2018)
    John Bonin "2nd Texas Infantry" (1977 - 2012)
    Last edit: 2 years 3 months ago by RebBugler.
    The following user(s) said Thank You: Jean Lafitte, Hook, roy64, Biondo, DarkRob

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    Moderators: RebBuglergunship24Leffe7Sargonpaul9038