Expanded Toolbar - Grog

[mcaryf]

Hi Didz

Some historians think that the French would have done better to try to hold the Prussians back whilst they were still in Bois de Paris - I am not sure how that would have worked with cavalry. In fact the SOW game engine does seem to allow cavalry to be effective and melee in woodland although I am not sure if either side gets a terrain bonus. Looking at the SOW formation files cavalry does get a reduction in melee effectiveness if it is in skirmish formation. It seems to make sense to me if I give myself a house rule that I can only use my own cavalry to melee in skirmish formation in woodland. I will experiment with that.

Regards

Mike

[Didz]

Some historians think that the French would have done better to try to hold the Prussians back whilst they were still in Bois de Paris - I am not sure how that would have worked with cavalry.

Some historians are idiots.

I have actually wargamed that scenario, and it was hopeless. It's true that the cavalry can delay the advanced guard of the Prussian Army for a while (as indeed they did), though obviously not in the woods themselves as it completely undermines all the tactical advantages that cavalry have over infantry.

I found I was able to prevent the Prussian infantry debouching from the Bois de Paris merely by demonstrating aggressively in the open ground to the west. No Prussian infantry was willing to try and move across the open ground with French cavalry hovering menacingly around them.

However, this was only a short-term advantage. Eventually. the Prussians managed to bring up some artillery, which began to make things uncomfortable, and finally their Corps cavalry appeared to neutralise the threat and unable to match their numbers I was forced to give ground.

A more sensible line of defence would have been to defend the Lasne Brook further to the east. The Prussians had trouble getting across this defile even without any opposition from the French. Had the banks been defended it would have been a nightmare for the Prussians to cross.

[Jack ONeill]

RB,

Am totally digging the 5.6 Bar, but have a question - Where does one put their own "User Scenarios"? I have tried renaming the stock ones and putting them in the single Scenario folder we now have but to no avail. Thoughts?

Jack B)

[DarkRob]

RB,

Am totally digging the 5.6 Bar, but have a question - Where does one put their own "User Scenarios"? I have tried renaming the stock ones and putting them in the single Scenario folder we now have but to no avail. Thoughts?

Jack B)

You shouldn't have to. The newest Grog toolbar comes with the stock scenarios already in the User Scenarios tab.
(The scenarios tab is simply the user scenarios tab renamed and the waterloo battles tab eliminated. This was done to stop players from trying to play through the waterloo battles tab while using the grog toolbar, which caused the game to crash and made many aspects of the grog toolbar not work at all)

[Jack ONeill]

Okay, guess I have to take the time to explain this -

Since there is now no "User Scenarios" tab/section/whatever at the start of the game, (while using RB's excellent 5.6 toolbar :cheer: ), "WHERE" does the aspiring modder place His/Her/it's personally written Scenarios so one can play them? In the not too distant past, many of us renamed the in-game scenarios so we didn't have to play them in order, but just liked to play certain ones. (One of my fav's from SOWGB was Barksdale's Attack at the Peach Orchard - 2nd Day.) Another situation where renaming is in order is the "Whole Army" scenario, where a simple renaming allowed the player to pick a unit within the army, rather than using the whole army itself. The fabulous "Blenheim" Mod allowed this, as I didn't want to be Marlborough or Tallard, but was happy to be Eugene, Cutts, or Max Emmanuel.

So, with the greatest respect to my good friend RB, how do we do it? I've tried a couple of versions, but no joy.

Jack B)

...and yes, I still wear sunglasses all the time...

Note - I am posting all this here only because it directly relates to RB's toolbar. Otherwise, I'd have run my face somewhere else more appropriate in regards to Mods and Scenarios.

...and no, I still can't type...

[RebBugler]

Hey Jack

The Scenarios button is now User Scenarios. All scenarios are accessed through the Scenarios button. All stock scenarios are now included with the Grog Toolbar because they crashed when played through the Waterloo Scenarios window using the Grog Toolbar. So, if you design a scenario, copy it to the Grog Toolbar Scenarios folder and you'll find it in the familiar User Scenarios window, renamed Scenarios.

Hope this cleared things up. Dark Rob answered your question clearly for me, thanks Rob, so since I said basically the same stuff, I'm unsure. I think you're in denial that the Waterloo Scenarios window is unavailable now when the Grog Toolbar is activated.

[mcaryf]

Hi Reb

i have been trying the cavalry in Skirmish formation and I am not too sure yet that I would want you to do more work to make it available at the unit formation level. I had hoped that it would reduce the casualties from enemy guns when I might be using cavalry as a guard unit near my own artillery but I am not sure yet that it does that effectively. However I will keep trying.

I do, however, have another suggestion for you with respect to an enhancement. I have been impressed both whilst watching Rob's videos of all the scenarios and from my own experience that one of the greatest area of weakness with the AI is the lack of protection it gives to its artillery. I have looked at the divisional square formation that you have implemented in the Grog Tool Bar and it occurs to me that it would be better if the formation resulted in the Divisional artillery being positioned between two of the front battalion squares so that the artillery would be protected to some extent from cavalry charges. At the moment the artillery just forms up behind the squares where it is actually not very useful as it does not have a clear field of fire. Obviously a human player can then move the artillery to suit the circumstances but that would be much more complicated for someone trying to use your formation via AI programming. I guess this would be a variation of your artillery in front formation so I presume not complicated to implement

I do not know if a senior artillery commander e.g. the officer in charge of the Imperial Guard reserve artillery has the same capability as an infantry Divisional commander to issue commands to both artillery and infantry. If he does then it might be possible to assign some small infantry battalions to be part of his command so that the AI has a ready made set of guard units for the guns under his command. I have tried giving Guard commands in my AI coding but I have the impression that the Guard command expires after a while as I do not always find the artillery being guarded later in the game. Also the guarding units usually take up a position behind the guns rather than to the front but to the side which would be better.

I hope that this will not be too much work and that you think it worthwhile to implement. If you do do it please include in the notes about the mod how to call the command from the AI formtype command.

Regards

Mike

[Jack ONeill]

WORLD OF FREAKIN' STUPID HERE!!!!!!!!!! :pinch: :pinch: :pinch:

Gentlemen,

Thank you. After a careful reading of RB's latest post, it has dawned on me, (yes, amazingly slowly), I was putting my Scenarios in the wrong spot.

Have now put them WHERE THEY BELONG! (Dooh!)

Now, I just have to tweak them a bit to play inside the scenario, and not as the commander(s) listed.

Tally-ho! (or possibly En Avant mon Enfants! or even Vorwarts mein Kinder!)

Jack (overrun with brain damage, again) O'Neill B)

[RebBugler]

Hi Reb

i have been trying the cavalry in Skirmish formation and I am not too sure yet that I would want you to do more work to make it available at the unit formation level. I had hoped that it would reduce the casualties from enemy guns when I might be using cavalry as a guard unit near my own artillery but I am not sure yet that it does that effectively. However I will keep trying.

The game does take into account the density of formations, column formations thus taking the most casualties from direct canister hits. So, maybe there's an advantage here with the spread out skirmish formation. Still, 'skirmish' is realistically a misnomer for troops that can't fire, and since cavalry's only offense is charging, the spread out formation may nullify or diminish this effectiveness.

I do, however, have another suggestion for you with respect to an enhancement. I have been impressed both whilst watching Rob's videos of all the scenarios and from my own experience that one of the greatest area of weakness with the AI is the lack of protection it gives to its artillery. I have looked at the divisional square formation that you have implemented in the Grog Tool Bar and it occurs to me that it would be better if the formation resulted in the Divisional artillery being positioned between two of the front battalion squares so that the artillery would be protected to some extent from cavalry charges. At the moment the artillery just forms up behind the squares where it is actually not very useful as it does not have a clear field of fire. Obviously a human player can then move the artillery to suit the circumstances but that would be much more complicated for someone trying to use your formation via AI programming. I guess this would be a variation of your artillery in front formation so I presume not complicated to implement

Yeah, something is amiss now with artillery responses to approaching enemy. Unaccompanied guns, no friendly infantry close by, should automatically retreat when enemy units come within 150 yards, or thereabouts. I've seen this response fail far too often and Dark Rob's videos support this issue.
As far as a request for a battery within a brigade of battalion squares...The game doesn't allow this because arms can't be mixed on the battalion or brigade level. Now, I think I can contrive a division formation with a battery between infantry brigades of battalion squares...Is this worth the effort and practical in your opinion?

I do not know if a senior artillery commander e.g. the officer in charge of the Imperial Guard reserve artillery has the same capability as an infantry Divisional commander to issue commands to both artillery and infantry. If he does then it might be possible to assign some small infantry battalions to be part of his command so that the AI has a ready made set of guard units for the guns under his command. I have tried giving Guard commands in my AI coding but I have the impression that the Guard command expires after a while as I do not always find the artillery being guarded later in the game. Also the guarding units usually take up a position behind the guns rather than to the front but to the side which would be better.

Where they position themselves while under the guard command is beyond control, that I know of. I didn't know the guard command wasn't sustaining, but now that you mention it, it makes sense. Because, the AI doesn't recognize detached. This is a player control function. So, when the brigade commander of the guarding unit becomes engaged, they eventually call up all their battalions for battle, regardless of their detached/guarding state.

I hope that this will not be too much work and that you think it worthwhile to implement. If you do do it please include in the notes about the mod how to call the command from the AI formtype command.

Not sure of what you're asking with that last sentence.

I commend you for seeking improvements. Your ideas are well thought out, tested, and totally with merit. just wish we were in a state of flux where patches would help with these issues you speak of, there's only so much I can do to improve the game through the Grog Toolbar. Still, I'll keep plugging away.

[mcaryf]

Hi Reb

You said:
The game does take into account the density of formations, column formations thus taking the most casualties from direct canister hits. So, maybe there's an advantage here with the spread out skirmish formation. Still, 'skirmish' is realistically a misnomer for troops that can't fire, and since cavalry's only offense is charging, the spread out formation may nullify or diminish this effectiveness.

Part of the purpose in having cavalry as a Guard for artillery is that it can cause approaching infantry to form square and hence not get close enough to capture the Guarded artillery. The downside is that if the artillery is dueling with enemy artillery I do not want my cavalry guard unit to present a larger alternate target. Thus having the Guarding cavalry in skirmish formation might still deter infantry whilst reducing losses. However I am not yet sure whether skirmish formation results in the cavalry getting smaller hits but possibly more of them as it is a bigger target e.g. does it count as if it is occupying more hexes or is somehow a larger target?

Now, I think I can contrive a division formation with a battery between infantry brigades of battalion squares...Is this worth the effort and practical in your opinion?

Yes this is what I wanted. At present the Division's artillery forms up to the rear of the squares. I would prefer it to form up in the front line level with the squares. This might require the squares to be a little further apart but would set the AI in a powerful defensive formation with one command e.g. over a high value objective as well as being potentially useful for human players.

You did not answer whether a senior artillery commander with several batteries is equivalent to a Division commander and could also be given a battalion commander with infantry units under his command. I guess I can just create an OOB with a battalion or two under such an officer and see if it works.

My last question was just to confirm the syntax for the reference in a formtype command. As I understand it you have created within the Grog Toolbar files the specifications for a number of new formations which can be called from the formtype command. I just wanted to be sure where in your files I would pick up the reference that would link to the new variant of the Divisional Square as I want to be able to call it from my AI code as well as from the Grog Toolbar graphics interface.

Thank you for your final paragraph. I probably get more enjoyment from modding the game to reflect and then test historic "what ifs" than I do from playing the standard version - military history is another hobby of mine so I am aware of various alternatives that Napoleon and Wellington might have considered. I also like to make the AI a tougher opponent by making it cleverer rather than just stronger.

Regards

Mike