Notes on skirmishers

[LHookins]

EDIT: Note that this thread discusses many subjects besides skirmishers. You may find some of the battle reports interesting.

This thread is intended to be a continuation of the discussion in Didz's excellent After Action Report on Bijlandt's defense of "The Sunken Lane" in the Guides section.

The discussion went off topic a bit when we started talking about skirmishers, so it's better to continue it here, where others can see it and add their own insights.

There is some dispute among players of Scourge of War Waterloo about how realistic skirmishers are, their effectiveness, and their use in battle. Granted that the game places few restrictions on skirmishers, but the AI does not abuse this and it's up to individual players whether to abuse it themselves.

Here's some pertinent information:

From the first chapter Nafziger's "Imperial Bayonets", read for free as a sample on Amazon.

It should be clearly understood that for any rule one might establish for this period there are almost always exceptions.
The distinction between line and light infantry was that the light infantry was trained to operate in skirmish formations and the line infantry was trained to stand in the "line of battle."
The skirmish formation was a loose line of infantry in which the infantry operated relatively free of rigid control. They operated in pairs and several paces apart. They hid behind rocks and bushes when they fought and were used to harass the enemy line infantry, as well as to screen their own infantry. Light infantry could, if required, operate as line infantry and, depending on the nation, did so to greater or lesser degrees.

Bijlandt has four line battalions, militia if I'm reading the OOB correctly, and one battalion of Dutch jagers (light infantry) deployed to the front of his main force.

Because of the above quote, I believe that the entire jager battalion may be deployed as skirmishers, giving 6 or 7 one hundred man skirmisher units, keeping the remainder as a cadre for the skirmishers to reform to if necessary.

Line infantry has two "flank companies", a light company on the left and a heavy on the right. The light company could be deployed as skirmishers if desired, but I haven't researched lately if a militia would have an actual skirmisher trained light company: it's up to the player. Since each line battalion would be able to deploy a single 100 man skirmisher unit, that would give 10 or 11 skirmisher units on the field (the game places no restrictions on this).

I prefer to deploy my skirmishers in 100 man units to make them more maneuverable (it takes time for a large skirmisher unit to reorient itself to a new target) and to give more potential targets. A "company" is generally 100 men, but this varied.

The trick to winning The Sunken Lane is to deploy skirmishers to delay the French advance, and without them it's a sure loss. So the question becomes, how many? Much of this will depend on the difficulty level being played, but at higher difficulties the French basically march right over the skirmishers, forcing them back.

The actual "difficulty" level is set by the AI aggressiveness and morale options and the enemy strength. Normal is 0 and 100%. Historical is +3 and 100%. The other items set by the preset difficulty levels concern mostly game play options: Map details, visibility, Headquarters in the Saddle. For someone wanting to try HITS without the higher difficulty that comes with it, I suggest setting Historical, then select Custom and set the three options above to 0, 0, and 100.

I'd be interested in reading what other players have to say about skirmishers. Feel free to add to this discussion.

Hook

[xposethedarkside]

Originally posted by LHookins:

I doubt the stances themselves have been altered in any way. But other things have been changed that may cause stances to work a bit differently. You get a different emergent behavior, and I've seen examples that indicate this.

Im guessing some of this might be due to some of the movement properties of the Grog Toolbar. You know like with the grog toolbar how units will by default move in column by division? The stock toolbar doesn't do this, so a lot of times they will just end up moving in whatever formation they are already in like Line.
I could definitely see this leading to some behaviors unique to the stock game.

Some of the formations even look different in the stock game, like the column by division formation. It looks more like a battalion double line in the stock game rather than the dense boxy assault column the grog toolbar uses.

[xposethedarkside]

Originally posted by LHookins:

Edit to add: Everything is so interconnected in this game that it is almost impossible to predict all the changes a single change can make. A small change in one part of the game can make a big change in a different part.

Hook

Oh hell yea lol. That's why Im glad Im a computer dummy. I would hate to be a modder. I imagine the process is just maddening with one thing leading to another, and another, and another. Id pull my hair out haha.

[LHookins]

Creating a mod is not unlike planning a battle. You can follow that analogy as far as you wish. :)

[LHookins]

Everything has fallen into place for the game scale.

The troops are twice as tall as they should be, and if you look closely the sprites are twice as far apart as you would expect. Each sprite should be two, side by side, to fill the gaps in an infantry formation. So... a sprite ratio of 4:1 produces the correct unit frontage for infantry, the sprites should be half their size, and each sprite should be four sprites, in this case side by side. This would produce a three rank line formation in the same scale as the ground. This was documented previously.

You will notice that in the current game the buildings appear to be the proper scale for the existing sprites. This would indicate that the buildings are twice as big as they should be as well.

Let's test it. I went to La Haye Sainte in Google Earth and measured the building. It is 50 yards east to west, about 67 north to south. If we send a 200 man three rank line to stand by the north wall, it should be about the same size as the wall, about 45 yards. It is almost exactly 1/2 the size of the wall.

For the ground scale, the troops and terrain objects (buildings, trees, roads etc) should be half the size they are in the game. But in order to see detail in the troops and other objects they are twice the ground scale. This is appropriate.

Hook

[xposethedarkside]

Originally posted by LHookins:

Creating a mod is not unlike planning a battle. You can follow that analogy as far as you wish. :)

No plan of battle survives contact with the enemy? lol

[LHookins]

See? You've got it already. :D

Both the extremely good commander and the extremely bad one thinks he knows exactly what to do. The outcomes will be considerably different.

A commander who gets caught in a paralysis of analysis won't even get off the starting block.

Even when just planning the battle you have to leave enough flexibility to make adjustments for unforeseen events. If A then B.

Practice makes perfect. You don't learn coup de l'oeil by reading a book, and you can't make a mod unless you understand the game. (Actually, you can, and many do. Unfortunately. I'm not talking about SoW.)

It goes on and on.

Hook

[LHookins]

Good closing video, #37. :)

I was hoping you'd do a video explaining how to use the AI rather than micromanagement. That might be a good candidate for a HITS video on some battle you like. If you display all units on the map you can describe and explain everything that is happening.

Your closing music (La Victoire est a Nous, "Victory is Ours") sounded like the version from the 1970 movie. It's actually slightly abbreviated from the original music, which I think I heard for the first time in Fields of Glory. I can't find a good version of it on short notice tonight though.

Hook

[LHookins]

Found one. Sound quality isn't as good, but the full music is there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebfO1tUmsok&list=RD5keHVDZPoFk&index=49

Hook

[xposethedarkside]

Originally posted by LHookins:

Good closing video, #37. :)

I was hoping you'd do a video explaining how to use the AI rather than micromanagement. That might be a good candidate for a HITS video on some battle you like. If you display all units on the map you can describe and explain everything that is happening.

Its still something Id like to do in the near future. This video ended the main series, but the Grog Toolbar demystified series is open ended, and I can just add to it whenever I have something more to add to it.
As I mentioned in the video, I would like to take a little break, as this series has pretty much consumed my life for the past year, but I would like to do a more detailed episode on the AI and command system in the near future.

Maybe we could even do it together somehow, like over Skype or something. At this point your gameplay knowledge is at least equal to my own, and your knowledge of coding and computer programming and how the game works in that regard would be very helpful in explaining some of the ways the AI works and does things that are really outside my realm of expertise.

I know your internet situation is kind of sketchy as you've mentioned so wed probably have to work out the how and when and what time we could do it, assuming you would be interested in doing it of course.

Originally posted by LHookins:

Your closing music (victoire est a nous, "Victory is Ours") sounded like the version from the 1970 movie. It's actually slightly abbreviated from the original music, which I think I heard for the first time in Fields of Glory. I can't find a good version of it on short notice tonight though.

Hook

I just love that tune. I can listen to it forever. Its the type of music that if I was a French soldier could make me charge hell itself. Music worthy of the French Imperial Guard.

Its originally from some old opera.
You can hear it come in at around 21 seconds of this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3wI_n-6BPE

[LHookins]

I didn't know it was originally from an opera.

A bit of explanation: The movie version is missing one measure. The opera version has both, but they are identical. The version I posted has both measures and they are different. While searching I found versions with only either the first measure or the second, and some with both measures but both identical. I prefer the version from the video I posted, and this was the version, although not the same source, that was used in Fields of Glory.

And yeah... I'd charge the gates of hell itself with music like that inspiring me. :)

Hook

[LHookins]

I'll think about what I might be able to do to help with additional videos. I just wanted to mention this so you wouldn't think I was ignoring it. :D

Hook

[LHookins]

For your enlightenment:

Didz doing what I suggested and asking Uncle Billy his questions on how the AI system worked.

http://forum.kriegsspiel.org.uk/t2043-deciphering-the-ai-system

[Didz]

Originally posted by xposethedarkside:

Yea, actually the KS mod is really awesome. The AI coordinates it's forces better in the KS mod, especially with some of the more recent cavalry changes and the way infantry behaves.
Sometimes it's a little meek when it comes to artillery, but given that artillery is much more powerful than it is in the stock game, and given that there aren't supply wagons in the KS mod, it's probably better that it doesn't go ramming all it's batteries up to the front the way I do.

Yes! I've played a couple of sandbox scenario's since UB published his manual and the 1.27 version.

The first was set in Austria during the 1809 campaign and focussed on the battle of Wernberg in which i commanded Davouts Corps against a similar sized Austrian force. But I seemed to heavily outnumber the Austrians in cavalry and they quickly found themselves trapped in squares and pretty much at my mercy. However, I was really impressed how the cavalry and infantry co-ordinated their actions to systematically destroy each Austrian square in turn.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1378473354
I'm currently trying another sandbox scenario commanding the same Corps but this time during the 1812 campaign. This time I only have Pajol's Light Cavalry Division, and have been given the task of crossing the Dneiper River and establishing a stable bridgehead on the far bank.

I've actually video'd over an hour of this engagement, and I am wondering whether to add a narration and publish it. The obvious strategic challenge in this game was to get across the Dneiper before the Russian's could reach the bridge, and I managed to get one infantry division across and I'm trying to fend off the Russians to buy time for the rest to cross.

Some nail biting moments towards the end of the video when I decided to try and be bold and throw the 2e Chasseurs a cheval at a mass of Russian artillery that were sitting completely unsupported in the middle of the plain. It was painful to watch and they baulked before closing, and then in a scenario that reminded me of the 7e Hussars punishment at the Battle of Golymin, they fell back and reformed right under the muzzles of the Russian guns and just sat there by way of punishment for their temerity.

In the end I ordered them to fall back, conscious that I only had limited cavalry and losing a whole regiment to cannister shot would not be clever. But the 3e Chasseurs a Cheval as if to rub their noses in it charged past them and crashed straight into the Russian guns capturing or routing the entire force. Just to prove it could be done if you are brave enough.

I played Wernberg with the AI stance set to HOLD throughout, and for Smolensk I chose PROBE, and NONE for the Artillery as suggested in the manual.

But I agree with you the artillery is rather timid when using the KS Mod, however, I understand from UB thats it's intentional.

[Didz]

Originally posted by LHookins:

For your enlightenment:

Didz doing what I suggested and asking Uncle Billy his questions on how the AI system worked.

http://forum.kriegsspiel.org.uk/t2043-deciphering-the-ai-system

I also started a similar thread on Norbsoft Forum but got no response, which wasn't a surprise as that forum is pretty dead most of the time.

The thread on the KS forum is quite busy, although a lot of the discussion is about AI improvement rather than how it works. But I'm assuming that one would need to understand how it currently works before trying to improve it, so I'm happy to listen in to the debate and pick up what I can from it.

Originally posted by LHookins:

My stance table is 98% finished, lacking only a final touch-up and proofreading, but I've decided not to publish it. No sense having it come under attack. I made this decision some days ago.

That's a shame it could have been useful. I was quite surprised to find that nobody had done this already, and that Mitra never thought to add such a table to the end of his 'How to use the AI successfully' video, as it would have summed up the relative impact of each stance on the AI quite effectively.

Like you I started to map things into a table, but without being able to read the code it needs to be deciphered to make sense. For example: I understand a morale value of '11' is essentially 'OFF', or 'cannot be done' as morale values are only valid in the range 1-9. So, anything with a morale value of '11' to complete is basically impossible in that stance.

Originally posted by LHookins:

Although I don't agree with everything the KS mod does, they did some very good things. I'd have to play it extensively to know anything more.

I don't agree with everything they have done either @xposethedarkside: has already mentioned the timid artillery which I think would be more accurate for the Gettysburg game than Waterloo, and I agree with you that the skirmish system is still not correct for the Napoleonic period.

My personal preferences would be different, but as I can't do anything myself to change it I'm prepared to live with it in order to get access to the additional content.

[LHookins]

Thanks, David.

What I've created isn't a table, but a list of stances and what they do and when to use them, hopefully more complete than Mitra's docs. I haven't played the KS mod at all, so I don't know how applicable they would be there, but most of the information is pretty generic. Even without hard numbers I think it will be useful.

For example, I'm fighting Waterloo #23 right now giving nothing but Hold stances. I thought I might have fewer casualties doing that but it's not working out that way. Because Hold units won't attack except at very good odds, they aren't very good in an attack. But if you need to grab a VP site that's lightly defended, Charlet and La Haye Sainte for example where you'll have overwhelming odds, it works and you don't have to change his stance after he takes the farmhouse.

At least I'm still working on the stance documentation.

If anyone knows how the AI works it will be Uncle Billy. I haven't looked at the code (I don't want to know too much about the internals or it won't be as good a game for me) but he's been in there and even modified it. I'm really only interested in the emergent behavior, now how we got there. The idea is to make it more of a battlefield and less of a strategy game. If I ever do get into the code, it won't be to change the game but to try to fix bugs, which there are plenty if Uncle Billy is right. :D Playtesting that will be a nightmare.

For me, the most useful information he's told us is that the stance tables have overlapping values and still use a dice roll.

Hook