Antietam OOB

[MarkT]

Have you guys created a historical Antietam OOB yet? In the SDK?
I assume the one in the MOD "confederate flags" is simply a mod to feature the flags.

Mark

[Little Powell]

The Confederate Flags mod has the full OOB, same historic OOB that is in the expansion.

[MarkT]

Then it is incorrect in many ways.
1. Every union battery column A and C do not match. (Minor point as Column A is just a "toggle".
2. The Federal 12th Corps is organized incorrectly. It is shown with the Artillery split, and placed with it's divisions. It should be a Battalion.
3. 1 Rebel Battery is commanded by a different commander.
4. 2 Rebel batteries were not at the battle.
5. 95% of the rebel divisions are organized with "extra" artillery.
6. The "extra" Artillery belongs to the six batalions of Artillery that the OOB has omitted.
This is at a quick glance. :S

It is NOT a case of the "cvs" handling the command structure. The cvs is flexable enough.

Ironically, it is set up the same way as the TC2M conversion OOB, but, Some one did a lot of work fixing the names and terminology. It is simply wrong.
This is not "historical"...
So, I quess the answer is No.

Thanks Matt.

[Olszowy]

This is a good question and I have noted it before in the Gburg OOB. What is the definition of "historical" when it comes to the OOBs and SoW? What return dates are you using, who is the primary source, did you add in some strange straggling percentage number for strenth, etc. I do not mind if you quote a source for the OOB information providing in the game. People can fight all day about whether or not that source is good. You cannot just say "historical" and leave it at that. Current OOBs appear to be a mix of various sources and in some cases in plain error. When I was dragged through methods of historical research it was clear to identify and verify/justify/qualify multiple sources for accuracy, bias, veracity, etc. You opened up the OOBs so people can play with it and make their own changes and that is good. However, a known start point would be good so that you can really claim "best" historical representation. Cannot wait to see how you handle Western OOBs with units like Forrest and Wheeler who routinely and deliberatley inflated and deflated numbers in official reports to make themselves look good.

[Hancock the Superb]

The Gettysburg OOB, I assure you, is about as historically accurate as one can get. The order of battle has been cemented for a while among historians. The only question becomes, what is a good representation of the number of men engaged and the quality of the troops. These can only be answered by careful research, and differing ideas. There is no way anyone can say exactly how many troops were engaged in each regiment, even if you went through the consolidated reports. Men leave, are captured before battle, are detached, throughout the day. And there is no way to determine how well a regiment will fight. We can make guesses and create formulas, but we will never know, because part of the answer depends upon the exact conditions of the day.

As far as the Antietam OOB, I am sure Norb and Co know that the order of battle is itself not entirely accurate. But if you are going to wonder about the credibility of the oob, why not make yourself one which you deem is accurate? The OOB given is meant for playability in scenarios and sandbox, not to be used as a evidence for some graduate thesis.

[Little Powell]

Hancock is correct. The Antietam OOB is as historically accurate as humanly possible, while taking account of enjoyable gameplay, hence the structure of the artillery. Our #1 priority is always enjoyable gameplay, a very close #2 priority is historical accuracy.

[Saddletank]

Good points Hancock.

And if a few artillery batteries are shown under a different command level from that which you expected but in the game they nevertheless are in action in the same areas of the battle, supporting the same troops... so what?

The instant you press 'play' in the game, the simulation diverges from the best documented OOBs we can possibly have anyway, so what is it you are looking for?

[MarkT]

Saddletank,
What do I want? An accurate OOB as much as possible without Omissions, within the structure of the game. If not, fine do not call it so.
"as long as the guns are there.... So what". If they are my guns and under other commands, that is an issue. If my unit has extra cannon, it is non historical, that is an issue. If I were related to S.D.Lee and I wanted to command my battalion of Guns, I could not. Because they were omitted. That is an issue. Your point comes from the "playability" stand point. Accepted and understood. But NOT historical.

Matt, Playability first is fine, but don't label it "historical", for it is not. When you buy the game, you must mod it to play historical. :S (THAT IS ODD.) The scenarios are for playability. Sandbox should be historical, so you can choose who you want to command, (from those that were there.)
In Gettysburg, Sandbox has non-historical OOBs.

Hancock, Surely you do not suggest that the Gettysburg OOB is historical. It is not. Some Structure issues had to be overcome, but other similar areas are blatently wrong! This is NOT a matter of interperetation from different sources, this was intentional omission. Having to put general "No Body" in was a structural issue. 1/2 of the Confederate artillery structure was simpley wrong, and done so intentionally.

This is not an inditment of the game. History is history. It is WELL documented. Changing it does not do it justice.

[rclark14]

Hi, I enjoy the battles but I was wondering why is Jeb Stuart's pic there instead of Longstreet? Is that fixable or too late? thanks for reply, Rob

[MarkT]

RClark.... That is fixable I believe.... Little Powell will jump on that one... He fixes most anything.
Glad you are enjoying the game. It is a wonderful expierience.
He probably needs to know what game and scenario, etc..