Scourge of War Boards

So as soon as I point out the inaccuracies I can't be taken seriously? Are you one of the developers of the game, I sure as hell hope not cause you don't seem to know the history. Making a historical game you should be sticking to the HISTORY. Here since I am feeling generous I'll include a link to a article about the CORRECT drill and ceremony of the Napoleonanic Wars. Maybe you can learn something to make your mod historically accurate.

http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/infan ... tics_4.htm

What are your sources that show your formations are correct and were used throughout the wars?

walkingwolf01 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2023 2:35 am What are your sources that show your formations are correct and were used throughout the wars?

This toolbar began with the stock formations. I assume they best represent the Waterloo time period. As this mod evolved more formations were added, all variations of the stock formations. I consider these variations as gameplay formations, they could have been used historically, but you probably won't find them in any of the official drill manuals of the period. For example, division level formations with artillery in front of battle lines or between battalion squares. Also, here are some variations of the battalion level formations as listed in Update 3.0:

NEW 'Battle Line'
- 2nd row side steps to fill gap and shoots between 1st row troops
- It can't move so defaults to column by divisions when moved, eliminating lines moving about once the action begins
- When engaged, troops cycle through reloading, replacing the static look with action
- The shooting/firing sprite now appears in the advance and withdraw sequences

Battalion line formations segmented by companies per Nation: British Allies 10, French and Dutch 6, Prussia 4 (all complete segments display with full '200 sprites' unit)

Column by Divisions adapted as the default movement mode for battalions
- Closed interval form used by battle lines
- Full intervals used for assault sequences

Battalion pop up window with additional formations
- Additional column by divisions options plus skirmish

If a player wants to stick with the standard "historic" formations, they're included. And, if you're so historically astute, then you should be able to identify them and avoid the fluff, as you put it. This mod has been scrutinized now for eight years. If there are any profound inaccuracies as you profess I'd think they would have been reported and rooted out by now. Don't ask others to do your work for you by throwing out a link ... be specific, and above all, SERIOUS.

I've been following this for a bit.....
WalkingWolf,
You do not require a citation, you are correct about formations. RebBugler's Grognard Toolbar is not Associated with NSD and thus is just a mod. He has the right to put what he wants in his mod, but he is incorrect to associate it to be historical correct. His statement that you can filter through to find the historical formations and use only them, is time consuming, and not for a game player wanting to play history.
Also his statement that some of the formations "could have been" used on the division level are ok, it it the lower level formations that are not respectable. As you say, it is too much fluff and not very playable.

Mark
NSD Team Lead

You "historically accurate" guys always crack me up. Most of the time every one of you has a completely different idea about what is or isn't historically correct from the next guy that thinks he knows what's historically correct.
What matters to me is what works best in the context of the game. The Grog toolbar is a masterpiece of an interface, regardless of whether it's "historically accurate". I don't really care one way or the other whether it is or isn't. It works for the game perfectly.

The game is marketed with the tag line:

Scourge of War is the epitome of historical command simulations.

In my opinion it should then at least try to simulate how things actually where in the period.

That you can get better results against the game by inventing fantasy formations that never were is a shortfall of the game rather than a masterpiece of emergent gameplay.

All video games can be broken. All of them. There is always something you can do, some technique, some strategy, some sequence of moves that will stand head and shoulders above the rest.
That I created them has nothing to do with what the developers intended. They could not have forseen it.

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with the grog toolbar anyway. If we're gonna sit here and argue about what color socks Marshal Ney was wearing at Waterloo, or whether infantry used two or three rank lines when firing, then my first question is going to be, is it something the game takes into account at all anyway? Or is it just graphical?
If it's just graphical then who cares? If the combat results are the same regardless then we're just talking about visuals, an abstraction. And I've got better things to do than argue about that.

"you historically accurate guys"... LOL. Yes there are many who think they know the history, and promote themselves as authorities. There are many that blatantly lie about it too. This is a very common issue with anything. But to insult the "History guys", and state you don't care in the same paragraph is comical. Why even post?

MarkT
Team Lead

MarkT wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 4:02 pm "you historically accurate guys"... LOL. Yes there are many who think they know the history, and promote themselves as authorities. There are many that blatantly lie about it too. This is a very common issue with anything. But to insult the "History guys", and state you don't care in the same paragraph is comical. Why even post?

MarkT
Team Lead

You answered your own question. There are so many people, with so many different ideas of what is or isn't historically accurate. How does one tell the difference between one who knows what they're talking about, and one who doesn't?
And to say I don't care about history is an oversimplification of what I said.
So allow me to clarify. I treat Scourge of War as a video game, because that's what it is. I play the game on the terms and conditions the game gives me, with the tools the game gives me to work with. I use them to the upmost of what can be done with them. If the game lets me do a thing, and that thing is a benefit, il use it. I'm sure many other players would consider the things I do unfair, or ahistorical, and again, I don't care. It's a video game. The rules are built into the game. And on that basis, the Grog toolbar is about as good an interface as I could ever imagine for the game. It's certainly light years ahead of that lame duck interface that came with the game originally. And I can only imagine what kind of mess the grog toolbar would have ended up had Reb listened to every Tom, Dick and Harry who thought they were a historical expert and tried to give them all what they wanted.

MarkT wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 4:02 pm "you historically accurate guys"... LOL. Yes there are many who think they know the history, and promote themselves as authorities. There are many that blatantly lie about it too. This is a very common issue with anything. But to insult the "History guys", and state you don't care in the same paragraph is comical. Why even post?

MarkT
Team Lead

Nah, you know what, I was way to nice to you in my last post. You call me insulting because the worst thing I said Is you historically accurate guys give me a laugh. The only other thing I said is most of you have wildly varying ideas about what is or isn't historically correct, a statement to which you, yourself, stipulated. If that's the worst I said, than so be it.

You however, took the opportunity to come in here and take a giant dump on 8 years of someone else's hard work. There was nothing constructive about your post. You never suggested any ways on how Reb could make the grog toolbar more historically accurate, or anything about how to make it a better interface in general. At least walkingwolf tried to cite what he was talking about. You didn't even do that.
Your post was dismissive and condescending, full of statements like, it's just a mod, it's not associated with NSD(despite the fact that Reb himself is) and it shouldn't be taken seriously by the historical player.

Oh really? As opposed to what? The stock toolbar? Is that the toolbar for the serious player? Now that's a statement that would truly give me reason to laugh.
I'm not claiming the Grog Toolbar is perfect, hell, I'm sure Reb wouldn't make that claim either.
But if you're gonna come in here and crap all over 8 years of another man's hard work, revision after revision, update after update for a toolbar that is almost universally beloved by the majority of the community, then dammit, come with more than that.

If the Grog toolbar is so bad, and so unhistorical, then why don't you design a toolbar that blows the Grog out of the water Mr. team lead and I will happily eat my words.We both know you're not gonna do that.

Reb slaved away on this toolbar for 8 years. When new updates to the game came out, he made sure the toolbar would work with them. When mods like Le Cent Jours came out he worked tirelessly to find a way to integrate the new formations of that mod into the grog toolbar, and the only person that asked him for that was me. He didn't have to do that, he didn't have to do any of it.
He saw what the stock toolbar was and said, I can do better, and he did. And me, and the vast majority of the SOW community that swear by the grog toolbar will always be grateful to him.
Maybe think about that the next time you want to dump all over someone else's hard work.