Deployment areas

[Count von Csollich]

I'm surprised that anyone would disagree (particularly as the implicit intent of most posters here is to achieve a high level of historical accuracy) that the historical starting positions should be the default option.

To those who seem to think this is an important (undesirable even), here's a question for you: why bother to have the correct order of battle either? Or the Pratzen Heights. This is the same school of thinking that has given us the atrocity of Quatre Bras to be played with completely the wrong order of battle and somewhat dubious terrain. There is a crossroads though, I'll give you that.

JMM has already accepted the need to revisit the starting positions and rightly so (thank you).

I couldn't have said it better myself!
Thank you, Sir

CvC

[Hook]

The historical starting positions should be the default positions, with a toggle to allow the AI to deploy as it wishes.  I don't think anyone would disagree with that.  At one time we had someone working on it, but he didn't finish.

The grand tactical AI might have problems with fixed starting positions, so there may need to be some enhancements there for solo play.

Hook

[Franciscus]

Not that it matters much, probably  , but let me join my voice to Simon's:

Absolutely agree ! No use to have historical maps, oob's etc if we can not re-fight the battle with the historical starting positions (and yes, I know that these are debatable but an acceptable consensus is surely achievable - and probably no-one here in these forums knows more about it than JMM himself).
I also understand that this may be much more important to solo players like me (that like to re-fight/re-live history, even on the losing side  ) than to the MP players. To tournaments, etc, a simple "sandbox" map and positions could even be enough. Not to me, though, sorry.

Regards

[Marquês de Alorna]

Not that it matters much, probably  , but let me join my voice to Simon's:
Absolutely agree ! No use to have historical maps, oob's etc if we can not re-fight the battle with the historical starting positions (and yes, I know that these are debatable but an acceptable consensus is surely achievable - and probably no-one here in these forums knows more about it than JMM himself).
I also understand that this may be much more important to solo players like me (that like to re-fight/re-live history, even on the losing side  ) than to the MP players. To tournaments, etc, a simple "sandbox" map and positions could even be enough. Not to me, though, sorry.
Regards

As an obsessive History addict, I'm also 100% in agreement with Simon.

[Théodoricus]

Hi all,

I know we are some "Grognards" and "Grenadiers" who take care of the historical positions at the beginning of a battle.
JMM has build an historical napoleonic game. So I think the best is that we should follow this way. But after, each player can choose to play historical or not.
I created 3 scenarios with exact satellite elevations and historical starting positions of the armies. I always give the different valid and accepted historical sources and documents I use.  And with my friends of the Peninsular Wars Group, we are now working for a mod with the same objective.
I think that when someone creates a map, OdB or scenario, he must specify if it's a random one or an historical one.
As JMM said, the maps and starting positions of the units in the original battles delivered in the HistWar game should be revisited.

Regards,

Théo

[Gunner24]

To those who seem to think this is an important (undesirable even), here's a question for you: why bother to have the correct order of battle either? Or the Pratzen Heights. This is the same school of thinking that has given us the atrocity of Quatre Bras to be played with completely the wrong order of battle and somewhat dubious terrain. There is a crossroads though, I'll give you that.

As I made the QB map you mention, I will answer this question.

I have no objection at all to historical maps, OOBs and deployments for those that want them - that would be a great addition to have for the option of "what if" starting with the correct forces, in the correct positions, on a correct map.

But an MP player (there are a few of us about) will not want to be playing the SAME game over and over and over again every night for the next 5-10 years !......MP gaming needs a serious amount of different maps, not the same few, MP gaming needs many varied OOBs, not the same one every time.....Do I want to play the same map with the same OOB every game - not a chance - but I have no objection if other people want to do that.

On my own made LG maps I have stated :

Please note there is no claim for these to be precise, exact, duplications, of these battlefields. They are intended for MP but can of course be used for SP as well.

The best thing of all is LG should be able to keep the solo and MP gamer happy - all at the same time, but I don't see it being very helpfull to dis-respect other peoples work.

[Marquês de Alorna]

I think that we can indeed make everybody happy. The option suggested by Hook makes a lot of sense.

António

[Gunner24]

The option suggested by Hook makes a lot of sense

Yes it does

The historical starting positions should be the default positions, with a toggle to allow the AI to deploy as it wishes

The toggle would make the AI pick a "random" deployment I assume - good idea.

[AJ]

This is the same school of thinking that has given us the atrocity of Quatre Bras to be played with completely the wrong order of battle and somewhat dubious terrain. There is a crossroads though, I'll give you that

If you don't like it don't fight it but don't be RUDE.  Oh, and make us all a better one.

[Hook]

...Quatre Bras to be played with completely the wrong order of battle

Are there a lot of Dutch-Belgian troops in the game?

Hook

[bibouba]

Peninsular Wars Group plan to integrate all the factions of the Belgium campaign.

But you have to wait a little. We start with mod 1 with english and potuguese army.
Mod 2 with the spannish
Mod 3 Belgium campaign (Prussian, Dutch and Belge).

[Simon]

Of course no one wants to replace the same battle ad infinitum but my observations in no way excluded other scenarios, or say Austerlitz (variant 1) type battles. Or, fictional battles for that matter.

As far as my comments on Quatre Bras are concerned, my point is that you should only call it Quatre Bras - if it is reasonably accurately based on that battle. Otherwise, it's just "A fictional battle based on the QB map". As far as the map itself goes, I thought one or two features were not quite right, particularly the wood of the hunchback looking a bit thin.

That said, it's good that people are taking the time and trouble to produce these add-ons which I'm sure, in the fullness of time, will be a great asset to the game.

[Hook]

As far as the map itself goes, I thought one or two features were not quite right, particularly the wood of the hunchback looking a bit thin.

That's a limitation of the map editor.  Go ahead and try to fix it and you'll understand.  What else is wrong with the map?

Hook

[Gunner24]

As far as my comments on Quatre Bras are concerned, my point is that you should only call it Quatre Bras - if it is reasonably accurately based on that battle. Otherwise, it's just "A fictional battle based on the QB map". As far as the map itself goes, I thought one or two features were not quite right, particularly the wood of the hunchback looking a bit thin.

The map was a map, and nothing else. It had a "health" warning with it, I will be the first to admit it is not perfect, it was never meant to be, if it was I would not even attempted to make it, or any other maps......so we have a choice, NOT make "perfect" maps or make maps that are interesting to fight MP games on.

Having said all that, if I had not named it as such, many people may have thought "that looks a bit like QB in the 1815 campaign".

That said, it's good that people are taking the time and trouble to produce these add-ons which I'm sure, in the fullness of time, will be a great asset to the game

.
Thank you, the more "stuff" the better, even if it's not all used, it is there for the choice to use it or not.

Back to subject : Deployment.....if JMM can change this in later versions we will all be very pleased, so not's let get side tracked into worrying about things that are there to be used or not - as AJ says.

ps-If you want to get the full enjoyment out of LG you would be well advised to get involved in PBEM and MP with real people, it's 100 times better than solo.