Expanded Toolbar - Grog

[DarkRob]

Reb, something else I just thought of, limiting each battalion to 1 skirmisher unit is likely to mess with some scripted actions in some scenarios. Off the top of my head "The Emperors plan" is an obvious one because before the scenario even starts, your leading battalion splits off 3 skirmishers on their own, just as a scripted action. This would probably cause a crash. It's probably an easy fix, but yea, those sorts of things will need to be looked at as well.

[RebBugler]

Reb, something else I just thought of, limiting each battalion to 1 skirmisher unit is likely to mess with some scripted actions in some scenarios. Off the top of my head "The Emperors plan" is an obvious one because before the scenario even starts, your leading battalion splits off 3 skirmishers on their own, just as a scripted action. This would probably cause a crash. It's probably an easy fix, but yea, those sorts of things will need to be looked at as well.

I think the best route to minimizing split units will be through the toolbar, thus eliminating any interference with scripted or AI actions, as you have pointed out in your last two posts. For this to happen new coding would need to be added, so once a split unit is created the parent battalion would be checked as 'Split'. With this differentiation the 'show condition' function could be used and would simply hide the 'Split-Unit' button, so it couldn't be used again, or up until the 'Join-Unit' command is used.

[DarkRob]

Reb, something else I just thought of, limiting each battalion to 1 skirmisher unit is likely to mess with some scripted actions in some scenarios. Off the top of my head "The Emperors plan" is an obvious one because before the scenario even starts, your leading battalion splits off 3 skirmishers on their own, just as a scripted action. This would probably cause a crash. It's probably an easy fix, but yea, those sorts of things will need to be looked at as well.

I think the best route to minimizing split units will be through the toolbar, thus eliminating any interference with scripted or AI actions, as you have pointed out in your last two posts. For this to happen new coding would need to be added, so once a split unit is created the parent battalion would be checked as 'Split'. With this differentiation the 'show condition' function could be used and would simply hide the 'Split-Unit' button, so it couldn't be used again, or up until the 'Join-Unit' command is used.

Honestly, that's a pretty good idea. For most players that limitation being put only on them, and not on the AI, would most likely result in the player and AI being on relatively equal footing, at least as far as skirmishers vs skirmishers goes.

Now me personally, there's a few ways right off the bat I can think of to make that actually work in my favor, but like i said in my last post, you can't balance a game around me, because you can always count on me to be the dastardly devious devil I am.

But for everyone else, this sounds pretty good. Certainly the best place to start I've heard so far.

[52ndOx]

Reb, something else I just thought of, limiting each battalion to 1 skirmisher unit is likely to mess with some scripted actions in some scenarios. Off the top of my head "The Emperors plan" is an obvious one because before the scenario even starts, your leading battalion splits off 3 skirmishers on their own, just as a scripted action. This would probably cause a crash. It's probably an easy fix, but yea, those sorts of things will need to be looked at as well.

I think whatever might be implemented it has to be simple.
A line battalion in the early 1800s would have 700-1200 men, if at full operational strength, and that would be 6 or 8 companies.
So saying that there is one company that is capable skirmish order still means anywhere between 100 and 200 men.
These don't have to operate as one group, it could easily be small independent groups with only a few in each. That is the whole point.

Where SOW fails is by the mechanic that massed troops behind a screen seem not to be targeted.
A unit in line firing at a skirmish unit in front of a column should still do most casualties to the column. The only purpose of the skirmish line is to harass and keep distance, both of which reduces casualties to the main unit. Skirmishers on their own will always lose to a line.
The margin for error with a musket is mostly in distance not direction, and most shots aimed at the skirmishers would pass through them and hit the massed troops behind. That they don't is what Dark Rob exploits with his play.

The other exploit in Rob's play is his 'fortress' formation, which is very effective in the game, but does not relate to any formation that would ever be seen on the battlefields of the time. It does kind of simulate that to be effective armies have to use combined arms tactics, but that should be artillery/cavalry/infantry working together, not just artillery screened by infantry. For me the game is not broken by using the fortress, it is just a choice on the player's part to play in a way which is not relevant historically. It reduces SOW from a reasonable attempt at simulation to a plain video game - which is of course fine if that is what the player wants.

Clearly a mod like the Grog is not able to change underlying fundamental mechanics in this way, even though it does a great job in tweaking some aspects. So for me the hope is that a new release would try to address them.

[DarkRob]

I think whatever might be implemented it has to be simple.
A line battalion in the early 1800s would have 700-1200 men, if at full operational strength, and that would be 6 or 8 companies.
So saying that there is one company that is capable skirmish order still means anywhere between 100 and 200 men.
These don't have to operate as one group, it could easily be small independent groups with only a few in each. That is the whole point.

Where SOW fails is by the mechanic that massed troops behind a screen seem not to be targeted.
A unit in line firing at a skirmish unit in front of a column should still do most casualties to the column. The only purpose of the skirmish line is to harass and keep distance, both of which reduces casualties to the main unit. Skirmishers on their own will always lose to a line.
The margin for error with a musket is mostly in distance not direction, and most shots aimed at the skirmishers would pass through them and hit the massed troops behind. That they don't is what Dark Rob exploits with his play.

The other exploit in Rob's play is his 'fortress' formation, which is very effective in the game, but does not relate to any formation that would ever be seen on the battlefields of the time. It does kind of simulate that to be effective armies have to use combined arms tactics, but that should be artillery/cavalry/infantry working together, not just artillery screened by infantry. For me the game is not broken by using the fortress, it is just a choice on the player's part to play in a way which is not relevant historically. It reduces SOW from a reasonable attempt at simulation to a plain video game - which is of course fine if that is what the player wants.

Clearly a mod like the Grog is not able to change underlying fundamental mechanics in this way, even though it does a great job in tweaking some aspects. So for me the hope is that a new release would try to address them.

Ok, so I saw this post earlier today, but didnt respond to it right away because I really wanted to absorb it and organize my thoughts in a logical, concise way. The first thing I want to say to Ox, on a personal note, is please understand, while im going to be disagreeing with many of your points above, its not coming from a place of ill will, or malice. It doesnt mean I dont respect your opinion, it doesnt mean I think you're an idiot, or that Im attacking you personally. Please understand that. I mean it sincerely. I understand both of us are coming from a place of wanting the game to be the best it can be, we just have different ideas about how to get there.

With that out of the way. This is exactly the type of thing I cautioned about in one of my previous posts. Its a drastic overreaction to what one player at the highest level can do when he combines a bunch of legitimate, unbroken mechanics into something that ends up being wholly broken.

To use an analogy, if someone goes into a home depot and buys a bunch of innocuous parts, components, and devices, that on their own are perfectly legitimate, and then this person takes them all home and some how combines them in such a way that he creates a nuclear bomb(anyone ever see that movie?), is it the individual components and parts that are at fault? Or is it the mad scientist who combined them in a way nobody else could have forseen or expected?

Or, lets use something even simpler. If an insane madman drives a truck onto a crowded sidewalk and takes out 20 pedestrians in 10 seconds, do we blame the truck? Was the truck broken? Or does the blame lay with the nutcase driver?

And while I might hesitate to compare myself to a mad scientist or an insane terrorist behind the wheel, when it comes to this game, well lets just say, there might be some similarities. It could be said that the game is the equivalent of the home depot in my example and that I walked in and took a whole bunch of innocent well meaning mechanics and built a nuclear bomb out of them. The question is, how much of that can be blamed on the game, and how much do we lay at my feet?

Lets try and examine that for a minute, and let us start with this line from Ox's post

Where SOW fails is by the mechanic that massed troops behind a screen seem not to be targeted.
A unit in line firing at a skirmish unit in front of a column should still do most casualties to the column. The only purpose of the skirmish line is to harass and keep distance, both of which reduces casualties to the main unit. Skirmishers on their own will always lose to a line.
The margin for error with a musket is mostly in distance not direction, and most shots aimed at the skirmishers would pass through them and hit the massed troops behind. That they don't is what Dark Rob exploits with his play.

Ox asserts here that the fact that skirmishers are capable of screening friendly forces in rear of themselves while generally getting the better of enemy line units is essentially broken because of the way I exploit this mechanic, and also because he says its historically inaccurate.
Now I disagree here, and I will explain why.

1. Whether its historically accurate or not is not entirely relevant. What is relevant is whether or not it simulates the actions and results the developers were trying to achieve when they made it that way. Remember we are in fact talking about a video game, not history, and sometimes video games have to use abstract concepts to best simulate the effect the developers are trying to achieve. Our troop sprites do not actually walk through walls when they enter a fort either, but we accept this abstraction because, yea we get the point of what it represents. Which leads me to point 2.

2. What you think of as an exploit, I call the core fundamentals of why theres a reason to use skirmishers in the first place. If you take away the skirmisher units ability to screen your main line units, or artillery, or cavalry, or whatever, then why have them out there to begin with? If they yield no more advantage in a fire fight with a line unit than a regular line unit of your own would, why split them off to begin with? Why bother? Just use your own line units instead, they have more men, thus more firepower to begin with.
In any video game, there has to be a reason to use something, or it wont get used right? What reason would I ever have to split off a skirmisher unit if they dont give me some kind of benefit that I cannot get from a different unit type? These are the checks and balances that go into making any video game, the check to too much power, and the balance to too little power.
But taking away their ability to screen, and fight effectively, without giving them something else in exchange isnt balance, its just gutting them so they are useless, because that is their core function, they really arent good for anything else. Everything else, other units can do better.

3. What is broken? What is an exploit? What do these words mean? It means something different to most people, and so we need to agree on a hard definition. One definition we might all be able to agree on might be something along the lines of, "A broken mechanic is a mechanic that fundamentally alters the game in such a way that the game can no longer be played as the developers intended"
Do how skirmishers work in this game meet that requirement? Lets see.

Il start by examining the this last sentence from Ox's post I quoted above,

That they don't is what Dark Rob exploits with his play.

Ahh, now we come to the root of the problem. There is no way to uncouple this sentence from everything said before. They are bound, and intertwined.
If this mechanic were actually broken, I would expect to see it impacting everyones games, it would be central and paramount above everything else in the game. It would fundamentally alter the game for everyone.
Do you know how many times ive seen someone, anyone, exploit what skirmishers can do with anything even approaching the efficiency and ruthlessness of what I do with them?
None. Zero. Zilch.
Its never happened, Ive never seen it happen, Ive never heard anyone ever claim they can do it, Ive never had anyone ask me how to do it, and Ive never had anyone even really care that it can be done(well, until now.) The most anyone seems to ever take away from it is, oh,ok, so skirmishers do have a reason to be used in this game.
The fact any of you are even aware of it at all is entirely down to me. Before I came along, the predominant consensus about skirmishers was that they were, fairly useless. I even remember a quote from Uncle Billy over on the KS forums who described the stock game skirmishers as "oats for the horses." That was how skirmishers were thought of before me.

Therefore, they are not broken mechanically, I am. And I take full responsibility for it. In my quest to become the best I never once considered the consequences of my actions or discoveries, I never once considered the ramifications of unveiling them to the community, and I never stopped to ask myself that all important question, "Because you can do a thing, does that mean you should do that thing?" I absolved myself of all responsibility by just saying to people that watched my videos, "hey Im not telling you one way or the other how to play, Im just showing you what can be done with the game."
Which in hindsight, is kind of a cheap get out of jail free card.

At any rate, I still maintain that skirmishers are not broken mechanically. The way they work in game does not break the game unless you exploit them to the degree I do, and as far as Im aware, Im the only one who can do that, because skirmishers do not exist in a vacuum. They are one component amongst many that I use to methodically dismantle the enemy. I also maintain that the issue is one of quantity, not quality of the individual unit. If theres ever been one thing most people take away from my videos, it could best be described simply as "more skirmishers = better"

Ok, well that went longer than I would have liked, but we still have one more thing to look at.

The other exploit in Rob's play is his 'fortress' formation, which is very effective in the game, but does not relate to any formation that would ever be seen on the battlefields of the time. It does kind of simulate that to be effective armies have to use combined arms tactics, but that should be artillery/cavalry/infantry working together, not just artillery screened by infantry. For me the game is not broken by using the fortress, it is just a choice on the player's part to play in a way which is not relevant historically. It reduces SOW from a reasonable attempt at simulation to a plain video game - which is of course fine if that is what the player wants.

Ok, so really the Fortress is not relevant to this conversation, for a couple of reasons,

First, the Fortess is made up of entirely legitimate mechanics, that when combined in a certain way, yield something totally broken. This is not the fault of the mechanics, for on their own, individually, none of them destroy the game. Its only when they are combined, in such a way that only I know how to do, does it yield such devastating results. This is the same as taking a bunch of routine parts you got from home depot and figuring out how to build a nuclear bomb out of them. The mechanics arent to blame, I am.

But for the sake of argument, lets say everyone agreed that this monstrosity should be gotten rid of for the betterment of the game. I might not even disagree with that assesement of it, but I would ask, how would you do it? What one thing, or set of things can you point to that we could take action against that would sweep the field of this hideous creation of an evil mind? Skirmishers must be it right? Except they arent. You could remove skirmishers from the game entirely and it wouldnt change anything. It would not erase the Fortress, and it would still be the best defensive formation in the game, trust me on that one.

Maybe cavalry? After all Cavalry is the main tool that imposes formational gridlock upon the enemy as they try and advance on the Fortress. If we got rid of Cavalry it would certainly limit the Fortress's ability to impose this formation gridlock on the enemy. The formation might hold initially due to its massed configuration and superior artillery, but with nothing to impose formational control on the enemy infantry, at best, youre going to get a more equal balance between the units fighting up front, likely lines and skirmishers vs lines and skirmishers. So it wouldnt wreck the formation, but it might make it so that the casualties on both sides mount up faster, shortening the amount of time the formation could be relied upon. But at what price? Weve now gotten rid of cavalry from the game. Is that really what anyone wants?

Perhaps the take command button is at fault? After all that is how I get all these units to stay in one place and maintain the integrity of the formation. And while getting rid of the take command button would certainly get rid of the fortress, it also gets rid of any semblence of player agency or interaction with the game itself. You might as well be watching a movie for all the influence you could have over the game without it.

See the rabbit hole we are going down here? How do you get rid of something when theres nothing to pin down to get rid of? The Fortress isnt a thread, its part of a whole tapestry of core mechanics that make up the whole game. So again, how would we get rid of it? And do we actually need to? Lets examine that next.

2nd. Does the fortress break the game? Well, objectively, yes it does. I designed it to do just that. But it would be more accurate to say, it breaks my game. Do you know how many people Ive seen use this formation besides me? Yep, you guessed it, None. Zero. Zilch. It is a fact that for most average players the concepts and multiple mechanics working in tandem that go into creating this churning engine of destruction are too advanced for most people to fully grasp, or even want to grasp. Your own description of it shows only a passing familiarity at best. Also, by your own admission, it doesnt break the game for you, because you dont ever use it. Well, guess what, nobody else, but me, does either. You are making an argument against something that doesnt really exist, except in one players(admittedly a nutcase) game.

So again this is a case of something that is purely unique to me, and me alone. IT IS NOT REAL. It is not representative of the way anyone, except me, plays the game. It has not fundamentally altered the way anyone, but me, plays the game.

This is why I cautioned earlier about making sweeping changes to the game based upon seeing some scary footage of me doing things that are totally extreme examples of what you can get the game to do if you manipulate the mechanics in such an extreme way.
You guys have made an amazing game Norbsoft, it needs a wash, a wax and a new coat of paint, not an engine and carb rebuild. Please dont ruin it, or over course correct because one player had to much understanding, and not enough restraint.

And again, Ox, this was not meant as an attack on you. It is only your ideas I disagree with, it has nothing to do with you personally, so please dont take it that way.

[RebBugler]

I think whatever might be implemented it has to be simple.
A line battalion in the early 1800s would have 700-1200 men, if at full operational strength, and that would be 6 or 8 companies.
So saying that there is one company that is capable skirmish order still means anywhere between 100 and 200 men.
These don't have to operate as one group, it could easily be small independent groups with only a few in each. That is the whole point.

Where SOW fails is by the mechanic that massed troops behind a screen seem not to be targeted.
A unit in line firing at a skirmish unit in front of a column should still do most casualties to the column. The only purpose of the skirmish line is to harass and keep distance, both of which reduces casualties to the main unit. Skirmishers on their own will always lose to a line.
The margin for error with a musket is mostly in distance not direction, and most shots aimed at the skirmishers would pass through them and hit the massed troops behind. That they don't is what Dark Rob exploits with his play.

The other exploit in Rob's play is his 'fortress' formation, which is very effective in the game, but does not relate to any formation that would ever be seen on the battlefields of the time. It does kind of simulate that to be effective armies have to use combined arms tactics, but that should be artillery/cavalry/infantry working together, not just artillery screened by infantry. For me the game is not broken by using the fortress, it is just a choice on the player's part to play in a way which is not relevant historically. It reduces SOW from a reasonable attempt at simulation to a plain video game - which is of course fine if that is what the player wants.

Clearly a mod like the Grog is not able to change underlying fundamental mechanics in this way, even though it does a great job in tweaking some aspects. So for me the hope is that a new release would try to address them.

Good points, maybe the game can address your "shooting through" concerns eventually, but at least this unrealistic behavior works the same for both sides, and doesn't break the game like DarkRob's 'Swarm' procedure (releasing multiple split-skirmishers) does. Also, I agree, his fortress thing is no threat, I think most SOW veterans worth their salt have their own versions, I certainly do.

Bottom line, the Swarm must be addressed. For this game to be respected and immersive the AI must be as competitive as possible. The Swarm procedure destroys this balance. The only way to balance this out would be to let the AI counter with also releasing and matching the player's numbers. But this would be stupid, unrealistic, ahistoric and performance demanding, so, no way in hell. Not only does the Swarm reflect unrealistic casualty figures favoring the player, that in turn makes competitive scenario designs next to impossible. They could theoretically be competitively designed, but players using the Swarm procedure would amount an overwhelming casualty proportion advantage and still receive a Defeat ... making the scenario, in turn the game, look dumb.

[walkingwolf01]

While I like the mod there is is way too much fluff in it. Scenarios, trees, ect included in the mod. I deleted 95% of what was in the folder. Another thing is why is there an advance a thousand yards? Instead why not have a advance to cover button. I think the formations can be a pain a lot of the buttons can be removed and spread out some of the formation buttons. There are far too many options in my opinion for formations. Some are double or triple repeated.

[RebBugler]

While I like the mod there is is way too much fluff in it. Scenarios, trees, ect included in the mod. I deleted 95% of what was in the folder. Another thing is why is there an advance a thousand yards? Instead why not have a advance to cover button. I think the formations can be a pain a lot of the buttons can be removed and spread out some of the formation buttons. There are far too many options in my opinion for formations. Some are double or triple repeated.

Glad you like this mod, and it's good that you have the modding know-how to adapt it to your way of playing style.

About the fluff and other observations:
- This mod uses commands and functions that are not available in the stock game, so the WL stock scenarios will not function correctly unless selected and played through the 'User Scenarios' screen. This is why renamed copies of these scenarios are included, besides being available for editing, as with the last update.
- The "trees" fluff is a mod that was added to eliminate what I call the "scorched earth" effect that the WL maps display. This Foliage mod is a must for me. Click this line to check out the Foliage mod's discussion thread with comparison screenshots.
- For my playing style and preferences, I like and use 1000 yard set movements a lot ... enough said. And, using these move buttons, the infamous "follow the leader" or "conga line" effects are eliminated; the starting formations are maintained.
- 'Move to Cover' commands are found on the infantry battalion toolbar. Using the move to cover command with brigades or larger doesn't seem practical to me because of possible alignment pitfalls.
- All the formations are unique. I tried my best to give the buttons unique appearances, please look again, and, I guarantee they all call unique formations. Furthermore, I like having formation options. The echelon ranks that call for more than three formations have popup menus that should make it easy to find and select a desired formation. Having numerous formations spread around just doesn't fly for me.

Anyway, thanks for the feedback, gave me a chance to explain some things...

[walkingwolf01]

The issue is many of the formations and orders are not historically accurate? Why is that? This game is supposed to be historically accurate, yet the formations in the tool bar are not. Most of the people playing the game, myself included want to play the game as historically accurate, with formations used at the time. Having so many formations is nice for someone who pauses the game to neatly organize their forces. But I play sandbox where you don't know where the enemy is. Having to click a box than click another box to click another box is time consuming and takes to long to get units in line to counter an enemy. The advance longer distances such as a thousand yards is useless in anything but some of the stock scenarios.

Also in terms of the "scorched earth" I don't have that issue after deleting the tree files from the mod. I also don't have issues with the scenarios after deleting the scenarios and 99% of the files in the mod. All that's left are the standard files for a tool bar mod. You may be wondering why I just don't create my own mod? My modding experience is limited to creating scenarios.

[voltigeur]

This game is supposed to be historically accurate, yet the formations in the tool bar are not

You'll need to cite if you want to be taken seriously.