Expanded Toolbar - Grog

[DarkRob]

Question Reb, did you adjust the victory point totals required for a major victory in both scenarios? Or did you adjust the points the objectives themselves are worth? Or maybe both?

For context of why I'm asking, both scenarios were incredibly easy to overscore by a large margin. For WL10 my highest score ever was 350,000 points, and for WL20 it was 490,000.

Which was insane since MV in WL10 was 30,000 and WL20 was 100,000.

The other thing is, looking at your screenshots, your casualties are very high on your side. That's actually a huge amount of points lost. At the highest level it really should be somewhere around 6-7k casualties on your side, and around 40k on the enemy side.
You're score would be much higher if you had kept your casualties lower.

But, this is all going by how the scenario was originally. I haven't had a chance to look at the new revision yet.
For context, heres the final video in my series where I was making a run at the highest score ever on youtube. Scroll to 2:05:00 for the victory screen.

[DarkRob]

So Reb, the first thing Ive noticed here is we're back to the old days before we just had the "scenarios" tab for the grog toolbar, and now its back to the old way with the waterloo battles in the waterloo battles tab, and everything else in the user scenarios tab. I no longer have a copy of the waterloo battles to put in the user scenarios anymore.
Did we go back to this old way on purpose?


EDIT: Nevermind, I got the folder in folder thing. I got it working now. Everythings good.

[DarkRob]

Oh wow, you increased the MV point total AND decreased the value of all the objectives. Ok...umm it's a whole new ballgame now.

[RebBugler]

Hey Rob,

Referencing my original plays, whereas both scenarios scored at around 400,000 points each, I reduced all the objective points by roughly 75%, that throws the new MV bars to 100,000. This is why I increased the WL10 MV bar, also this makes both scenarios proceed similarly objective points-wise. WL20 was fairly easy to score since most of its objectives are easy to activate within the first 10 minutes of play. However, the final two objectives which activate at random times had to be lowered so that early activation's didn't skew the points too much in the player's favor. I lucked out with WL10, since all the northern objectives take a while to conquer and activate. I just went by my test numbers and at least they worked out well for two test/scoring plays. Really the best I can hope for since all the different possibilities of the variants are impossible to test.

Sounds like you're putting on your battle hat and may give them a spin. Hope so, I'm looking forward to hearing whether this remake can thwart your battle machine-like approach. Or, at least slow it down.

Folks,
Latest update 9.85 released June 4th ... it got buried with the above discussion. Check out the first post if you missed it.

[DarkRob]

I checked out the first two hours last night, just to get a feel for it. It's a very different animal now. I crunched some basic numbers, the total value of the starting objectives on the map used to be around 320,000 points, now they're more like 65,000, which is a huge cut. So bare minimum I'd have to kill 35,000 British, while losing no men at all to reach 100k if I had possession of all the starting objectives from beginning to end, which of course I don't, and there's no way I can lose zero men. But that does give me a benchmark of where to begin.

Usually I can gain all the major objectives within the first two and half hours. The big question mark is I now don't know what the Plancenoit or Mont St Jean objectives are worth anymore, and I won't until I play it that far in.

I don't usually bother with Mont St. jean. Now I may have to.

So yea, everything's changed now. I mean, I think I can do it, but I'm not sure. Sounds like a YouTube series to me.

[RebBugler]

I don't usually bother with Mont St. jean. Now I may have to.

You better, and by my numbers, within the first three hours of play. If you blow it off entirely, your MV aspirations are toast.

Caught some of your video of this scenario and was really impressed by your low casualty numbers. It's gotta be the way you emphasize and release multiple split skirmish units that you're able to achieve such low losses. Enjoy them while you can, with our next release we'll look into taming these little 'Killing Machine Beasts' you've discovered and harnessed for nefarious purposes.

[DarkRob]

I don't usually bother with Mont St. jean. Now I may have to.

You better, and by my numbers, within the first three hours of play. If you blow it off entirely, your MV aspirations are toast.

It really depends on what its worth. I havent gotten that far yet. One of my main strategies in scenarios that have an objective that you really have to fight for is to just ignore it and make up the deficit by the sheer difference I can make when it comes to casualties(The Bossu Wood north objective in the French Quatre Bras scenario is a good example of this.)
So if its worth more than the 40 points a minute of either the Allied left or the right, it might be worth it. If its the same as the allied left and right, its probably not worth it as 6 hours worth of holding that is only 14,400 points, and Il easily extract twice that out of the Prussians at very little cost to myself because the Prussians always pound themselves to death against what I set up to greet them. 30,000 casualties out of the Prussians is pretty common for me. I wont really know for sure until I unlock that objective. The same could be said for the Plancenoit objective, except thats an auto take for the French as soon as it appears.

Caught some of your video of this scenario and was really impressed by your low casualty numbers. It's gotta be the way you emphasize and release multiple split skirmish units that you're able to achieve such low losses. Enjoy them while you can, with our next release we'll look into taming these little 'Killing Machine Beasts' you've discovered and harnessed for nefarious purposes.

They are certainly a big part of it, but not all of it. But skirmishers are in fact the most overpowered aspect of the game, Ive been saying that for years. They do need to be reigned in. The trick is of course how to find the sweet spot between overpowered and useless.

In my opinion, the way skirmishers work mechanically is fine, I wouldnt change anything regarding how they function. The problem is one of quantity. Theres no limit to how many I can kick out, or how far I can move them away from their parent units. Its this "limitlessness" thats the problem. Being able to flood the field with them is why Im so dominant with them.
How you want to limit them is up to you guys, Im not a game developer, I just abuse the game mechanics. Maybe only one skirmisher unit per battalion? Or a max percentage of how much of a units strength can be parsed out as skirmishers? Or maybe it could even be based on a units troop quality, maybe units below a certain troop quality simply cant release skirmishers.Theres lots of ways to attack the problem without having to actually nerf the individual skirmisher units combat ability. If they become totally useless, then Il just never use them.

[52ndOx]

Amount of skirmishers based on unit type would be realistic.

A light battalion should be able to fully deploy in skirmish order, a line infantry battalion usually has one light company that could be deployed, militia should be unable. Grenadier battalions should not be able either, they are formed by taking the grenadier company from each of a number of line battalions and none of them would operate in skirmish order.

In my opinion that would be enough even though it is a generalisation. No need to try to simulate differences in for different nationalities.

[RebBugler]

Amount of skirmishers based on unit type would be realistic.

A light battalion should be able to fully deploy in skirmish order, a line infantry battalion usually has one light company that could be deployed, militia should be unable. Grenadier battalions should not be able either, they are formed by taking the grenadier company from each of a number of line battalions and none of them would operate in skirmish order.

In my opinion that would be enough even though it is a generalisation. No need to try to simulate differences in for different nationalities.

Excellent, informative feedback. However, even if the game engine recognized and differentiated between the various unit types, the line infantry battalions would still have to be limited to only one split-off skirmish unit.

From DarkRob,
In my opinion, the way skirmishers work mechanically is fine, I wouldnt change anything regarding how they function. The problem is one of quantity. Theres no limit to how many I can kick out, or how far I can move them away from their parent units. Its this "limitlessness" thats the problem.

Totally agree! I think that if we limit each battalion to only one split-off skirmish unit, and that unit is limited in size to 25% of the battalion, that this dominance issue could be resolved. However, I don't think how the player uses the unit should be interfered with. I've found that the skirmish units are quite handy at running off close artillery units without suffering major losses.

[DarkRob]

From DarkRob,
In my opinion, the way skirmishers work mechanically is fine, I wouldnt change anything regarding how they function. The problem is one of quantity. Theres no limit to how many I can kick out, or how far I can move them away from their parent units. Its this "limitlessness" thats the problem.

Totally agree! I think that if we limit each battalion to only one split-off skirmish unit, and that unit is limited in size to 25% of the battalion, that this dominance issue could be resolved. However, I don't think how the player uses the unit should be interfered with. I've found that the skirmish units are quite handy at running off close artillery units without suffering major losses.

Its possible that would be enough, I wouldnt know until I actually got my hands on them to see what I can still do, and what I cant. It also highly matters what reaction the AI would take to these changes. The AI already underuses skirmishers compared to what players can do, and drastically underuses them compared to what I do with them. If the AI's response to this limitation is to then use skirmishers even less, or not at all, then the change could end up actually being a buff to skirmishers, at least as far as how players use them.

Thats the thing about making changes to a system, it doesnt exist in a vacuum, it doesnt just affect skirmishers, it affects the system as a whole, and so how the change affects the whole system has to be looked at as well. I would be surprised if something as simple as just limiting to 1 skirmisher unit per battalion didnt have some kind of unintended, or unexpected impact on the system as a whole, maybe good, maybe bad. Im not saying its not the right approach, its probably a good place to start, but its got to be put through the trials afterwards to see how it affects everything else.

I say this because ultimately, skirmishers arent the true META of the game, artillery is. Its just that skirmishers are the tool that most enables this META. 85-90% of the casualties I inflict on the enemy come from artillery. Unrelenting, constant, and close range canister fire. Battery after battery after battery lined up in close, combined arms impregnable formations, right up front, with skirmishers screening everything, the guns, the cavalry, the squares, and the assault columns.

Sometime when you have the time, you should watch this video, from about 1:05:00 onwards.


Watch what I have set up to meet the Prussians as they approach. As this engagement goes on, notice the disparity in casualties, see what manpower Im actually using, vs what the Prussians are trying to use. I might occasionally lose a skirmisher unit, or have to temporarily recall them in the face of a cavalry charge. Maybe I lose one or two main squares over the course of the whole engagement, that are quickly replaced with a seemingly limitless source of manpower simply because of how I use my forces.
But then look at the penance exacted on the Prussians for every small attempt they make on the formation. Infantry lines forced into square by my cavalry integrated into these formations and shredded by skirmisher and canister fire, and they cant move simply because I have one measly cavalry squadron nearby. If they stay far enough away from the cavalry to stay in line, great, they cant come any closer, and Im the one with the cannon.

Enemy cavalry squadrons blown to pieces by canister fire from the batteries, fire from the square, all because they went after a worthless skirmisher unit, and that, only because the formation is set up so thats the thing they HAVE to go after first, because thats what is out front. But its just bait. Im exploiting flaws in the AI, in how it approaches the enemy, in how it chooses targets, in how it does not know how to use its artillery effectively on the attack, and finally, in how it doesnt understand the true META of the game. The AI and I are playing two very different games, and my game is better.

If these flaws are not looked at, then I think a small change in how I can use skirmishers, will not affect the bigger picture, nor should it(more on this later) The AI needs a better understanding of combined arms. It is still basically a civil war engine, with some napoleonics tacked on. In reality, it is Napoleonics that are the complete picture, and the civil war that should be tacked on, a time when weapons and technology were advancing at such a rapid pace that the men in the field were not capable of adapting fast enough, resulting in the much more simplistic line firing at line combat in the early civil war.

Without a solid understanding of combined arms, and how each arm can be used to both protect, and make all the other arms better, then the AI will never be able to defeat a player that does, other than simply putting the difficulty up to some unreasonable level that just makes the AI's forces gods that no tactics will work against. And I also know that one minor change to skirmishers isnt likely to change much for me.(Again, nor should it, Im getting to that soon)

A daunting task it would be Im sure to overhaul core mechanics and AI scripts and reactions, believe me, I understand. But it is these core mechanics, and my understanding of their limitations, that are the real reason for my dominance. I spent years, since the day the game came out tirelessly breaking down these mechanics and how they work because I wanted to understand everything there was to understand about how to play the game, and how to be the best, because of how much I loved the game.

The irony of showing that love of the game by breaking everything about it is not lost on me. That was never my intention when I started out in 2015, but that is where it ultimately led me. The AI is an open and shut book to me now. I know what it will do, before it even knows what it will do. And the only thing that occasionally surprises me is how spot on I am in predicting its actions.

In spite of everything Ive said above, skirmishers do need to be reigned in, and starting from a place of restricting a battalions ability to kick out multiple upon multiple skirmishers is indeed where I recommend starting. Im just saying, look at the big picture as well, how the overall game responds, how the AI responds. Does this actually end up reigning in skirmishers? Or does it have some unexpected reaction with the system as a whole that actually ends up benefitting the players use of skirmishers? Or perhaps a side effect that neither you, nor I can see at this time. SOW is a complex engine, with many moving parts churning under the hood that most players arent even aware of.

"The more complicated the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain" Scotty - Star Trek III: The Search for Spock.

(ok, we're finally here)
At the same time, you cant balance the game around what I can do, or around challenging me, that ship sailed years ago. You cant make the game so mercilessly difficult that the average player cant even have a hope of succeeding at it. Its the average players, that by and large, you want to sell to, and have the game be the most fun and rewarding to. There are many of them, and only one of me. "The needs of the many", another Star Trek quote.

For example, I took your recent Waterloo revision for a spin not to long ago, and I have to say, I think you nailed it. I think its as perfect now, as it could be, not for me, but for everyone else. I crested 100,000 points in the 6th hour, BUT, thats as it should be. Im the best there is, I should be able to do that knowing what I know. All things being equal, I will always be able to do it better and faster than the next guy. Again, as it should be.
But the point is, for the middle of the road player, the ones that have enough understanding to play the game at a decent level, the ones who care about realism and accuracy, the ones who want that somewhat in control, but mostly out of control chaos of war, I truly think you nailed it my friend.
The scenario is now no longer winnable by even the most incompetent player. A respectable understanding of the game, its strategies and tactics, is now a requirement to win. Its something to work toward. Beating it now will be a true test of their abilities for most players. Attainable, but not without some work by the player. Beating it now will be a true benchmark for the player to rise to. And I believe it will take just the right amount of work for a true sense of accomplishment, but not so much work that the journey to victory feels futile or tedious.

Its this benchmark that I believe the game as a whole should be balanced around, in that what can we reasonably expect the average player to be able to accomplish?

I am not a good example of this. In spite of what I personally know how to do with skirmishers, artillery, enemy formation control and distance management, you have to understand this isnt representative of how most people play the game. It only looks like a big problem because of me and just how ruthless I am in exploiting these things. Be cautious about over nerfing skirmishers because of what you see me do with them. Again, Im the exception, not the rule. Most people will not split off skirmishers in the numbers I do in the first place, simply because they're incapable of controlling that many at once. You can split off as many skirmishers as you want, but if you dont know how to use them, where to place them, what their purpose is, and how they fit in to the overall big picture, then it does those players no good in the first place to do so. Skirmishers are just one small part of an overall much bigger picture that ties into enemy formation control, distance management, and very specific placement within much larger combined arms formations.
Without the understanding of these larger concepts and how skirmishers work within them, all you have is a whole bunch of skirmishers running around, and probably out of your control.
It only looks really bad because of how I do it. Im that ruthlessly efficient, and I cannot change. I know to much, and I cannot unlearn it(though sometimes I wish I could)

But overall, its not that bad, even the way it is now. The average player will never be able to do what I can do, and thats a good thing. The game is only broken at the absolute highest level of play, a level most people will not be obsessive enough to ever want to reach, which is also a good thing. It probably means I need to get a life lol.