OOB accuracy of standard scenario's

As you know I've been using the opening advance of Reille's Corps at Quatre Bras to test my alternative sound files for the KS Mod, and I've noticed that in the opening stages of this scenario the Allied cavalry (Dutch and German) seem to dominate the battlefield on every occasion I've played.  This struck me as rather odd as historically the opposite was true, with notable disasters befalling several Allied infantry units including the loss of the colour of the 69th Foot.  

There is also mention of French Heavy cavalry being present in numerous eyewitness accounts whereas Ney only has Pire's light cavalry at the start.

I've checked a few oob's for the battle and most seem to agree that the Dutch had no cavalry present at the start of the battle, and only Perponchers Infantry Brigade were on the field with two artillery batteries, whilst the French had the entire of Reilles Corps with five batteries.  So, has this oob been modified to produce a more balanced game, or have I just been unlucky in every play through so far?

Both Siborn and Hofschroer agree that the first Allied cavalry to appear on the field were Merlin's Brigade of 1,000 sabres (5th Light Dragoons and 6th Hussars). Siborn times their arrival as 2:45pm, Hofschroer somewhat later at between 3pm and 3:30pm. But even so Pire had 1,729 sabres already present, not counting the guard cavalry who he was told to preserve. These were then further supplemented by the arrival of Kellerman's 11th Cavalry increasing the total number of cavalry available (excluding the guard) to 3,608 including the 8th and 11th Cuirassiers.

So, it looks to me as though the historical oob's have been overridden by the desire to balance the game.

I've never played any of the stock scenarios, so I have no idea. The KS mod did away with squadron level cavalry long ago as we determined that their presence dominated the game and relegated the infantry and arty to subservient roles. They were also the object of abuse by human players, darting in and out in precision strikes. Perhaps if you mod the scenario and join the squadrons into regiments, they will return to their more historic function.

I've been watching DarkRob's playthrough of the battle using the Grog Toolbar and he only seems to get bothered by the two regiments of Merlin's Brigade, that appear at around 2:45 as mentioned by Siborn. So, it might be related in some way to my use of the KS Mod. I've been told elsewhere that the KS Mod causes issues with the stock scenario's. However, i have no idea how I would go about modding the standard oob's. I know some people have corrected the Waterloo oob to reintroduce missing units etc. So, i'm assuming it's possible.

I'm sure the KS wouldn't work as well as it could with the stock scenarios. For one, the edged weapon values for cavalry are completely different. To mod the scenarios, you'd need to make changes to master OOB, OOB_WL_Quatre_Bras.csv, which is in the OOBs folder of the DLC. You'd also have to make changes in the individual senario.csv file in the appropriate Scenarios sub-folder.

Oh! well it's not that important. Maybe some day I'll take the time to study the SDK and see if I can create my own Quatre Bras scenario based on the KS Mod.

The main thing is that the KS mod wasn't really designed to be played with the stock scenarios. It can be used with them, but you're likely to see uneven results from scenario to scenario. The KS mod makes all sorts of changes to infantry, cavalry and artillery, including their strengths, weaknesses and individual unit as well as overall behaviors. Depending on the scenario, these differences can have a dramatic impact on the overall play balance of the scenario.

Ive not played the particular scenario you are referring to here using the KS mod, but I can say that the larger the scope of the battle(brigade/division/corps etc etc) the more likely the differences in the KS mod will begin to have more of an impact.
So an army scenario is likely to be heavily affected by the KS mod, while in a brigade scenario, the differences will be less in your face, though they are still there.

I tend to think of the stock game and the KS mod as separate games, and really they are, they just happen to be built off the same engine, but really that's where their similarity ends.

They both have their purposes. The stock game works well for the stock scenarios, which are all heavily scripted anyway to make up for some of the shortcomings of the AI. And for those scenarios, the stock game is where its at.

The KS mod has a better independent AI, it doesn't require scripting. It can be played in any style, but I think it shines most in HITS play with maximum FOW as that at least seems to me what it was most designed to enhance. It also has a whole pallet of its own scenarios that come with the mod.

I don't get the chance to play a lot of multiplayer so I cant really speak from experience on which system is better for that. However, again, it seems to be what the KS mod was most designed for.

Im getting off topic though, really what I mean to say is that if you're trying to play the games stock scenarios, then Id recommend not using the KS mod. For anything else, the KS mod will do fine.

I prefer the KS Mod because it tries to correct a lot of the inaccuracies in the standard game.  So, ideally I would prefer to use it to replay the standard battles because it should produce a more realistic result, or at least a more immersive look.  

However, having said that I didn't actually buy the game to refight the historical battles so it's certainly not a major issue for me.  I actually bought it under the misunderstanding that it included a campaign option, which in fact it doesn't, except for the laughable little mini-game that doesn't really work.

At some point I might play some of the main battles seriously, but before I do I would want to remove most of the VP's which are just artificial game goals, and probably override a lot of the scripted AI behaviour, which I suspect is only there to force the AI to recreate history.  As you know I've been reading Hook's reports on his mod to re-balance the VP's and I may take a look at that and see if it also opens up the possibility of getting rid of them completely, alternatively as I said before the answer may be to simply take the map and design my own scenario from scratch.  It's really just a question of whether its worth the effort just to play a battle that's already been fought before and which I've replayed several times in the past.

My biggest complaint about NSD scenarios is the micro-management necessary to take an objective and hold it long enough to reach an arbitrary number that indicates a victory. IMHO that's the most unrealistic aspect of the game. In order to make it work from a gameplay perspective, troop levels have to be adjusted and neighboring units have to be frozen in place so they don'r interfere in the battle.

In KS game we don't assign point values to objectives, rather they are goals that must be met in conjunction with more important factors such as having a viable fighting force at the end of the battle. We also use a battle outcome calculator which uses much more sophisticated criteria to determine a battle's outcome. A number of times, the side with the lower number of casualties was adjudged the loser. However, if the AI is unscripted, it needs objectives, otherwise divisions will be sent in very random directions with no coordination between them.

The only thing that worries me a bit about your explanation above is whether what your saying is that the AI is too dumb to play without the VP objectives.

For example my scenario 'The Crossing of the Dnieper 1812' only has one token objective point on the entire map.  I assumed that the AI would recognise this as an important location and move in a coordinated fashion to capture and hold it, even though it was only worth 100 points out of a victory total of LOADS (I don't even know, I just maxed it out).  But is that enough to get the AI to behave sensibly or does it actually need to be led by the nose.

The point value of the objective is irrelevant to the AI. An objective just has to exist somewhere on the map.

As indeed it does. Perhaps to excess. What I like about the restricted movement maps is that you can put the objective somewhere and the attackers will actually follow the roads no matter where you start them instead of moving across country. Of course, they will tend to converge on the objective instead of moving to attack from different directions as a human player would do.

My next attempt will be to make my side the attacker and see how the AI does on defense. I haven't tried that yet.

Uncle Billy wrote:The point value of the objective is irrelevant to the AI. An objective just has to exist somewhere on the map.

That's what I relying upon, so I'm glad to hear it's c

rschilla wrote:My next attempt will be to make my side the attacker and see how the AI does on defense. I haven't tried that yet.

I usually use 'Hunt them down' as its about the closest you can get to a campaign effect with this game.  But I have discovered the AI force concentrated on the token VP point. e.g. the previous scenario I played 'The Battle of Wernberg' saw the entire Austrian Army concentrated in and around Wernberg.

In a defend mode game, the AI will usually send 2/3 of his divisions, (if there are at least 3 AI divisions), to the objective, leaving the other 1/3 at their start position as a reserve.

The one thing that is puzzling me at the moment is that every time I try to run a small sandbox scenario (e.g. Brigade v Brigade) I get really weird results.  I've mentioned in the past finding myself commanding a battalion of British Foot Guards opposed by a French artillery battery, and last night I found the situation reversed when I was commanding a battery of French 12 pdrs facing an Austrian infantry battalion.  It doesn't even allocate a full brigade from the oob, let alone a balanced force.  However, it does work as expected at Division; Corps and Army level.

The sandbox game generator is not very good for the reasons you've mentioned. The KS scenario generator is far superior. It allows the player to set the number of divisions, brigades, batteries, etc. and will also the player to set the balance level of the three arms of the two armies. You can have a well balanced scenario, or give one side or the other an advantage.

Hi Didz
if you are worried about the accuracy of the OOB in the standard Quatre Bras scenario you should note that the French starting forces in QB already have been reduced by the losses they actually suffered in the historic battle.  In ligny the Prussians do not have the losses they suffered in their retreat from Charleroi.

The parallel fault is that the Allied forces do not have the losses they suffered at QB in the Waterloo OOB.  Thus the French lose out three times!

I have made a reasonably correct scenario version of QB but it has a non-historic option for the French player to choose how much of D'Erlons' Corps should march to Ligny as I use it for a campaign series with some command errors corrected.  You can of course choose not to use D'Erlons even if his units are on the map so that would give you the historic version..

Regards

Mike

Interesting, I hadn't noticed that Reilles Corps was understrength due to having its historic casualties at Quatre Bras already deducted. I assume whoever compiled it mistakenly thought they could use the same figures for both Quatre Bras and Waterloo. I was looking more at the units that are missing entirely, as Reille seems to be light of a couple of artillery batteries I think.

I would have expected the casualties suffered at Quatre Bras and Ligny to be deducted from the strength of units at Waterloo (or at least a percentage of them allowing for men returning to the colours/eagles).

What applications do you use for editing the OOB's and managing your map campaigns?

Hi Didz

Virtually all the data files in SOW such as OOB's are in spreadsheet format (comma separated) so I use EXCEL but Open Office would work as well.

I have not tried changing the maps themselves but some of the underlying values which determine the effects of terrain are also spreadsheet files.

Historically Reille was missing one of his divisions plus its associated battery at Waterloo as that of Girard fought as part of Vandamme's Corps at Ligny and was so severely damaged that it was left to guard prisoners and collect weapons there. Of course if you choose to re-fight the battle of Ligny and Girard's division is less cut up then you could choose to add it back to Reille's corps.

Only one of Kellerman's cavalry divisions actually fought at QB but it was nearby so I make it available in my version of QB.

Regards

Mike

Yes! Interestingly Kellerman turned up in my last play through.  I got the normal message saying he was available and could be called upon for a penalty of 2,000 points, but he actually turned up anyway and sent me a note asking what my orders were.  So, I'm not sure if I got the penalty or not, but I don't pay attention much to the VP system anyway.  In practice Ney's mission was to prevent the Allied Army supporting Blucher at Ligny sot as long as he does that he's won in my book.

According to Hofschroer the forces available at Quatre Bras at 2pm on the 16th included:

ALLIED: 8,000 infantry in nine Netherlands battalions from Perponchers Division supported by 16 guns.
FRENCH: 9,600 infantry, 4,600 cavalry, 34 guns.  Jerome's Division would arrive at 4pm adding 7,800 men and 8 guns and Kellerman's cavalry another 2,700 sabres and 12 guns.

The breakdown of the French OOB at Quatre Bras on the 16th shows:

• Bachelu's 5e Division 5,225 men, 8 guns
  
• Jerome's 6e Division 6,907 men, 8 guns
  
• Foy's 9e Division 5,581 men, 8 guns
  
• Pire's 2e Cavalry Div. 2,025 sabres, 6 guns
  
• Reserve artillery 160 men, 8 guns
  
• Kellerman's 3e Cavalry Corps
  
• l'Heritier's 11e Cavalry Division 1,818 sabres, 6 guns
  
• d'Hurbal's 12e Cavalry Division 1,580 sabres, 6 guns
  
• Lefebvre-Desnouettes Guard Cavalry Division 2,077 sabres
  

A total of 25,373 men and 50 guns.

In practice Ney's mission was to prevent the Allied Army supporting Blucher at Ligny sot as long as he does that he's won in my book.

This is how I always approach the game. Was the mission objective achieved and do I still have a viable fighting force left? I give extra credit if there is an intact, relatively fresh cavalry force to pursue.

I did a quick comparison between the strengths quoted by Hofschroer and those listed in the OOB_SB_WL_Quatre_Bras.csv and if anything it looks as though the game overstates the French strengths.

Bachelu's 5e Division has an extra 195 men
Jerome's 6e Division is missing 337 men
Foy's 9e Division has an extra 161 men,
Pire's 2e Cavalry Div.  missing 13 sabres
Reserve artillery 160 men, missing 8 guns

The main difference is the absence of Reilles reserve artillery which means he is missing 8 guns, although the OOB includes D'Erlon's Reserve Artillery and Jacquinot's Cavalry division which presumably turn up if you choose the D'Erlon option.

Changing the subject slightly. Is it possible to change the unit size ? Yesterday I changed the "The Head count" in an OOB and saved it and then made a User scenario using the OOB but found when I loaded up, the numbers had not changed. The Head count was the only numbers I changed and only for Infantry, should I have changed anything else ?

I wonder if it would be possible to write a few instructions on how to write an OOB, for us folk who don't really know what they are doing ? I look at some of the colomns bewildered, I understand the morale and fatigue that sort of thing, but don't know anything about making a names file or anything like that. All the best.

I did try the OOB in a sandbox battle and it works...Just not for user scenarios ....Strange.

Hi Stephen
The starting forces are actually described in a file called scenario.csv which specifies the unit's location, formation and strength, the units have to be in a similar command structure to the OOB file but the number of troops etc can actually vary up or down from the OOB file.

Thus if you just want to vary the numbers you only need to change the scenario.csv file but if you want to add whole new units or change the command structure then you need to change both the OOB and Scenario.csv files.

Sandbox games create the scenario file using the data from the OOB file which explains why the changes showed up in your Sandbox game but not when you played your scenario.

One further point check you are changing the right scenario.csv file. if you use the Grog tool bar then the standard scenarios are embedded in that. You need to copy the particular scenario folder and rename it before you modify the scenario.csv file within it.

Regards

Mike

Changing the subject slightly. Is it possible to change the unit size ? Yesterday I changed the "The Head count" in an OOB and saved it and then made a User scenario using the OOB but found when I loaded up, the numbers had not changed. The Head count was the only numbers I changed and only for Infantry, should I have changed anything else ?

Did you use the KS Scenario Generator to make this scenario? If so, you have to remember to put the new OOB in the OOBs and Maps folder of the SG. The SG uses those OOBs.

Hi yes I placed the "New" OOB In the folder which contains the Maps and OOBs. As I said the Sandbox battle worked fine with the changed numbers, just not in the user made scenarios made with the KS Scenario generator.

I did try to copy and paste the numbers into the Scenario.cv file but this crashed the game. So I just opened the file and typed in a few entries in the Scenario file and saved. Went into user Scenarios and this seemed to work. I seem to be asking alot of questions, but I like to try and do a few things, it is such a pity there is no referance to information apart from looking at other peoples questions and..Solutions, I can only do very basic things.

This is such a great mod and I'm having fun with it. I have the Nafziger Napoleonic lists and would love to do a battle OOB...Maybe some kind soul will write some instructions on how to make one. Thank's again for the help and advice.