New Scourge of War Waterloo video series on youtube

A section for Waterloo videos, screenshots and fan art. Post any of your creations here!
mcaryf
Reactions:
Posts: 236
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2015 8:19 pm

Re: New Scourge of War Waterloo video series on youtube

Post by mcaryf »

Hi roy64
Sorry to interrupt but does the ShrapnelEx mod you have listed just get rid of Shrapnel or does it try to make it effective?

Regards

Mike
roy64
Reactions:
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 10:47 pm

Re: New Scourge of War Waterloo video series on youtube

Post by roy64 »

Sorry mate I don't know there's no description with it.
Leicestershire
mcaryf
Reactions:
Posts: 236
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2015 8:19 pm

Re: New Scourge of War Waterloo video series on youtube

Post by mcaryf »

hi roy64

Where did you download it from - I searched the forum for it and did not get any hit.

Mike
roy64
Reactions:
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 10:47 pm

Re: New Scourge of War Waterloo video series on youtube

Post by roy64 »

From here somewhere. :( Here's mine for you.

I found the page.It's one of your own threads :laugh: :laugh: http://www.norbsoftdev.net/forum/waterl ... -mod#73712
Attachments
ShrapnelEx.rar
(67.71 KiB) Downloaded 17 times
Last edited by roy64 on Fri Dec 22, 2017 7:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Leicestershire
mcaryf
Reactions:
Posts: 236
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2015 8:19 pm

Re: New Scourge of War Waterloo video series on youtube

Post by mcaryf »

Of course and therefore Ex = explosion! I thought the "Ex" might mean it just Excludes all Shrapnel ammunition and replaces it with useful munitions as in the standard game Shrapnel hardly seems to have any effect!

In my own Artillery Mod for Shrapnel explosions I make canister appear as an air burst - the French referred to Shrapnel as "Black Rain" and that seemed to give a fair representation.

Thanks anyway

Mike
mcaryf
Reactions:
Posts: 236
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2015 8:19 pm

Re: New Scourge of War Waterloo video series on youtube

Post by mcaryf »

Hi Rob

I see you are asking for feedback on how to post your complete 7 hour Battle of Ligny video on YouTube.

It seems to me that if you break it up into 3 or more chapters you could post very brief summaries of how the battle has progressed between chapters and which chapters you consider to be the most significant in terms of winning the battle or lessons to be noted. Then if someone does not have 7 hours available to watch it all they could jump in and catch the critical episodes starting from intermediate points.

By the way I think you sometimes do not give yourself sufficient credit when you admit to being non-historic. One example was your victory over D'Erlon's attack by slipping a cavalry unit through their flank to destroy the French gun line. That sort of happened only with the Allied cavalry in question riding through the French infantry rather than round it and the French had made an error in leaving the guns unprotected.

Equally when you wonder whether your Fortress formation is historic, this was precisely the sort of thing Wellington did with his checkerboard of squares with guns in the intervals. Of course he did it largely on a reverse slope to prevent the French artillery from pounding his squares - I bet the French thought that was an unfair tactic but it worked! Also SOW does not have a facility for gun crews to take refuge in squares so your "exploit" with skirmish lines being recalled and effectively disappearing sort of replaces the lack of the real ability for skirmishers and crews to retreat into squares.

Great job Rob.

Regards

Mike
Last edited by mcaryf on Wed Dec 27, 2017 9:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
mcaryf
Reactions:
Posts: 236
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2015 8:19 pm

Re: New Scourge of War Waterloo video series on youtube

Post by mcaryf »

Hi Rob

Once again congratulations on having the dedication to create all your videos.

I have been watching some of your Ligny full battle videos. I have two questions and one observation.

My first question is does formation have any impact on the rate of casualties a unit suffers or the volume of fire of fire it delivers once it is in a fortress? it seems you can choose square, line etc etc. and you suggested that a skirmisher unit can be thrown into square by being in a fortress. Normally a unit in square would suffer more casualties so how does that work?

My second question is why do you not use your skirmisher strategy with the church rather than just using smallish battalions? I am guessing that splitting the small unit up and having more units in the fortress probably allows more enemy units to be under fire and may well reduce the casualties suffered.

My observation is that you obviously do abuse the use of skirmisher units. I do not expect that the developers will change that mechanism at this stage of the Waterloo series. However, players could set themselves some house rules to get closer to reality. Units with experience 4 or less are pretty well militia units - I would have a house rule not to allow them to split off any skirmishers. Units of experience 5 might be allowed one skirmisher unit and units above that could split off any number of skirmisher units. This last is partly because it would be too onerous for the player to keep track of how many skirmishers he had split above one.

Keep up the good work

Mike
DarkRob
Reactions:
Posts: 352
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 5:56 am

Re: New Scourge of War Waterloo video series on youtube

Post by DarkRob »

Hi Rob

Once again congratulations on having the dedication to create all your videos.

I have been watching some of your Ligny full battle videos. I have two questions and one observation.

My first question is does formation have any impact on the rate of casualties a unit suffers or the volume of fire of fire it delivers once it is in a fortress? it seems you can choose square, line etc etc. and you suggested that a skirmisher unit can be thrown into square by being in a fortress. Normally a unit in square would suffer more casualties so how does that work?

My second question is why do you not use your skirmisher strategy with the church rather than just using smallish battalions? I am guessing that splitting the small unit up and having more units in the fortress probably allows more enemy units to be under fire and may well reduce the casualties suffered.

My observation is that you obviously do abuse the use of skirmisher units. I do not expect that the developers will change that mechanism at this stage of the Waterloo series. However, players could set themselves some house rules to get closer to reality. Units with experience 4 or less are pretty well militia units - I would have a house rule not to allow them to split off any skirmishers. Units of experience 5 might be allowed one skirmisher unit and units above that could split off any number of skirmisher units. This last is partly because it would be too onerous for the player to keep track of how many skirmishers he had split above one.

Keep up the good work

Mike
Hi Mike, thanks for the questions. I'll start with the formation question. Formations absolutely have a huge effect on both casualties taken as well as volume of fire. Squares take more casualties from musket and artillery fire than any other infantry formation. So why use squares in the fortress? Well because squares stop cavalry cold. You can always kick out skirmishers to screen the squares from infantry fire. Enemy cavalry may run them off here and there but they won't be able to do it indefinitely. Even at St. Armand where the french cavalry harassing my skirmishers was pretty effective, eventually the cavalry used up their morale and fatigue and gave up on it. I can always kick out more skirmishers. The main idea of the fortress is that it protects artillery at close range. Artillery within 200 yards is the most effective form of fire in the game. Hence why I go through all the skirmisher shenanigans at the beginning to turn all the french guns around as they're coming forward. I want to be able to deny the french having guns at close range, while I get to abuse it.

But I digress. Like I said the main reason for the fortress is to protect artillery at close range and be able to handle any combination of arms coming at them, at least for a time. I'm a super hands on player because obviously the AI will not abuse the game mechanics like I will. So pretty much I TC every unit I'm using. The only pitfall of TCing everything is having to watch them like a hawk all the time. Obviously in a scenario as large and long as Ligny, that's impossible. The fortress is pretty much self sustaining. I can disappear off to some other part of the battlefield and I know that fortress will hold. Even if it gets in trouble it will not fall quickly. At least not before I can get back there and start shifting units around. So yea, basically that's the reason the fortress is mostly made out of squares. It stops cavalry cold. So if I'm off somewhere else I know a sneaky cavalry charge is not going to crack open my formation. At best it will run off my skirmishers. My square will run off thecavalry, and the square will hold against infantry or skirmisher fire long enough for me to come back and fix things. All the while th close range artillery is doing it's deadly work.

As for why I use small battalions inside the church and not skirmishers. It's just experience. You would think things would be as you say, but for some reason they just aren't. Skirmishers do badly inside the church and they tend to rout faster than the small battalions. I don't know why, it's just the way it is. That's why I grab all the small Prussians battalions and detatch them and bring them over by the church.

As for house rules for abusing skirmishers. Most multiplayer groups tend to play HITS. Virtually none of my strategies work for playing HITS because you can't just abuse TC the way I do playing HITS. You have to delegate alot more to the AI and as I said the AI doesnt abuse the game mechanics. And my videos are all of me playing the AI. I don't think the AI will get mad at me for abusing the games mechanics lol
Last edited by DarkRob on Tue Jan 23, 2018 6:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
mcaryf
Reactions:
Posts: 236
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2015 8:19 pm

Re: New Scourge of War Waterloo video series on youtube

Post by mcaryf »

Hi Rob

Thank you for your answers. I am sorry I asked you a question about fortresses and you naturally thought I was referring to your "fortress" but i should probably have used Fort or Castle as I meant units inside a fortification. So to clarify I meant when a unit enters a building I find I can then change its formation to several different types. In your video you referred to skirmishers actually adopting a square formation inside buildings but does that improve their effectiveness whilst still inside the building? If you have changed a unit's formation whilst in a building have you found which one might be best?

With respect to house rules I was thinking about methods to give the AI a bit of help to make a fight of it, limiting use of skirmishers to be more like the historical pattern would be one contribution to that.

Regards

Mike
DarkRob
Reactions:
Posts: 352
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 5:56 am

Re: New Scourge of War Waterloo video series on youtube

Post by DarkRob »

Hi Rob

Thank you for your answers. I am sorry I asked you a question about fortresses and you naturally thought I was referring to your "fortress" but i should probably have used Fort or Castle as I meant units inside a fortification. So to clarify I meant when a unit enters a building I find I can then change its formation to several different types. In your video you referred to skirmishers actually adopting a square formation inside buildings but does that improve their effectiveness whilst still inside the building? If you have changed a unit's formation whilst in a building have you found which one might be best?

With respect to house rules I was thinking about methods to give the AI a bit of help to make a fight of it, limiting use of skirmishers to be more like the historical pattern would be one contribution to that.

Regards

Mike
Ohh Ok, I understand now. When units are inside a fortification they automatically have an all around facing. I wouldn't necessarily call it a "square" per se, but essentially yea, they have an all around facing. Changing formation inside a fortification in theory doesn't do anything. Regardlesss of the units formation they still have an all around facing. However, being inside a fortification can be somewhat glitchy, especially when it comes to unit status such as "engaged", "resting", "moving" Sometimes a unit inside a fortification will be shown as "moving" when in fact they aren't. But the game still has them as moving, and so their fatigue will wear down over time if left like this. Sometimes changing formation, or reclicking inside the fort can correct this.

If you want to play on more of an even keel with the AI then I wouldn't recommend using any of the things I do. Nearly everything I do is an abuse of the game mechanics. From the way I use skirmishers, to the way I use artillery, infantry and cavalry, to how I abuse engage distances etc etc. Its all dirty. But its also the surest route to winning, which is what my series is all about.

The truest and most honest way to play is HITS, because you cant abuse any of the things I abuse.

EDIT: As to how effective units can be inside a fortification. That has more to do with how many sides of the fort the enemy can bring fire against. The more you surround a fortification, the faster it will fall. This is why I try to protect the flanks of fortifications so that the enemy can only bring fire against 1 side of it at any one time. Troop quality of the units inside the fort can also play a factor. Higher quality troops will stand for longer than lower quality troops. Fatigue can play a part as well, but so long as the troops inside the fort are getting the best of it, fatigue doesn't play that big a part.
Last edited by DarkRob on Tue Jan 23, 2018 7:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply