Statistics

Users
3488
Articles
156
Articles View Hits
1537499

New review from "Out of Eight"

5 years 5 months ago - 5 years 5 months ago #1 by Major Damage

  • Cannon Fodder
  • Cannon Fodder

  • Posts: 5
  • Thank you received: 2

  • Gender: Male
  • Birthdate: Unknown


  • "Both the campaign (where units are moved between towns and battles are resolved) and skirmish modes feel incomplete and unbalanced, though multiplayer is available. The redesigned interface incorporates a nifty right-click menu for issuing orders, but the icons in the information bar are a mess: the difference between buttons and status icons should be more verbose.

    Realism can be adjusted, integrating the use of couriers to deliver orders on horseback if desired. The AI is problematic: it routinely overrides your orders with major adjustments that ruin any sort of strategic cohesion. While units can be directly controlled, this is a logistical nightmare in larger scenarios.

    Scourge of War: Waterloo, thanks to half-baked skirmish and campaign modes and the domineering AI, is a very disappointing sequel."

    Cheers,
    Last edit: 5 years 5 months ago by Major Damage.

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    5 years 5 months ago - 5 years 5 months ago #2 by con20or

  • Moderator
  • Moderator

  • Posts: 2540
  • Thank you received: 465

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • Some people just do not get SOW, and this is one unfortunately. He particularly struggles with the controls, I stopped watching when he had moved 8 regiments into a ball in the open field. If as he claims he has played plenty of the previous games he will see how well the AI performs in SOWWL.
    Last edit: 5 years 5 months ago by con20or.

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    5 years 5 months ago #3 by Marching Thru Georgia

  • SOW General
  • SOW General
  • Secession Is Futile

  • Posts: 1736
  • Thank you received: 429

  • Gender: Male
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • While there are legitimate criticisms that can be lodged against the game, I've made several myself, the reviewer didn't have a clue as to what he was doing.

    His complaint that as soon as an objective was captured the game would end was self induced. He set the objective capture to be instantaneous and the total number of points needed before the game ended was almost exactly the same as the objective value. Clearly he did not take the time to set this up properly.

    His next complaint was how far away the objective was in the attack mode. It's apparent the reviewer is more comfortable playing FPS games. Anything that requires planning is beyond his endurance. The need for immediate action was evident. He also seemed to have forgotten that the game can be sped up or slowed down to move past those boring sections of the battle.

    His third criticism was directed against the AI, a commander who was far superior to his pathetic abilities. Yes, the units will bunch up and perform a Chinese fire drill if brigades are ordered to close together. Part of that problem is player error but also in part because the formations are not properly designed in the first place. It's a common complaint but one that has good solutions.

    The reviewer's ignorance concerning even the most basic of 19th century tactics was on full display when he complained about the skirmishers going out to do battle. In addition, his complaints of the AI not following his directions ring a little hollow as not once did he try to alter the stance of the commanders. He left them to do their own thing and was upset when that is exactly what they did. I guess he didn't know what all those buttons were about after all.

    I hate being so harsh, but the reviewer really was incompetent. He needs to stick with the game genres that he is most comfortable with. Military strategy games is not one of those.

    I can make this march and I will make Georgia howl.
    The following user(s) said Thank You: Grog

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    5 years 5 months ago #4 by ADukes

  • SOW General
  • SOW General

  • Posts: 862
  • Thank you received: 91

  • Gender: Male
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • The following user(s) said Thank You: JC Edwards

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    5 years 5 months ago #5 by con20or

  • Moderator
  • Moderator

  • Posts: 2540
  • Thank you received: 465

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • Maybe the new UI threw him? Hard to say.

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    5 years 5 months ago #6 by NY Cavalry

  • Brigade Commander
  • Brigade Commander

  • Posts: 530
  • Thank you received: 115

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • He seems to be a fan of SOW Gettysburg.

    Part of the series is learning how to get AI controlled generals to do what you want. It looked like the Prussian AI controlled forces were doing pretty well.

    I'm trying to learn Napoleonics, so I really cannot comment too much on game tactics. I will ask though why is cavalry so aggressive? I do understand that combined arms are important and that getting cavalry into the fight is very important. I am just having trouble controlling them. At 4 to 5 hundred yards they will advance on their own even while being under a hold command????????????????????

    Also, over at the matrix site a question has been raised about movement speed..........
    www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3876525&mpage=3
    If this is true, I can even understand the problem here. This should be fixed in the first patch. Reason being is that a movement column was used to facilitate movement and therefore should be faster.

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    5 years 5 months ago #7 by Gunfreak

  • Regimental Commander
  • Regimental Commander

  • Posts: 415
  • Thank you received: 57

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • But the ai in Waterloo is the same as Gettysburg(in that the ai dosn't always do as you tell them)
    It's been like that since the take command days. The ai never followed your orders to the letter. How he thinks this is diffrent then from gettysburg I do not know.

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    5 years 5 months ago #8 by mitra76

  • NSD Dev
  • NSD Dev

  • Posts: 928
  • Thank you received: 383

  • Gender: Male
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • The bad reviews are good as the "good" ones as far there's a feedback about how a player sees the game and what he dislikes. At the end all of this can be used to improve the game more.

    I will ask though why is cavalry so aggressive? I do understand that combined arms are important and that getting cavalry into the fight is very important. I am just having trouble controlling them. At 4 to 5 hundred yards they will advance on their own even while being under a hold command


    The targeting range from the unitattributes.csv (cavalry doesn't use anymore the carabine range as targeting max range like in Gettysburg) is variable and more extended respect Gettysburg and in general in the OOB cavalry leader have a style so aggrerssive that they react more in term of stance. In any case this part is very moddable so modder will can define how personal preferences (and of course me too I will do my tunings along the patches path).

    Visit my wargames blog: warforgame.blogspot.it/

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    5 years 5 months ago #9 by Marching Thru Georgia

  • SOW General
  • SOW General
  • Secession Is Futile

  • Posts: 1736
  • Thank you received: 429

  • Gender: Male
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • Bad reviews are good if they are based on thoughtful comment. This wasn't one of those.

    Errr...would you mind sending me a copy of unitattributes?

    I can make this march and I will make Georgia howl.

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    5 years 5 months ago #10 by Xreos1

  • Grunt
  • Grunt

  • Posts: 42
  • Thank you received: 24

  • Gender: Male
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • When a reviewer starts out with the evolution of the game with no reference to Sid Meyers Gettysburg and Antietam, or Strategy Firsts Waterloo or Austerlitz his credibility with me is diminished.

    Then lets play sandbox campaign, we'll play THIS GUY, WHY NOT ... and we'll do conquer the map, with a division? I could not watch anymore.

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    5 years 5 months ago #11 by sifis172

  • Grunt
  • Grunt

  • Posts: 51
  • Thank you received: 16

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • from what i followed this guy, was angry at some previous
    replies.

    He* claimed that the game was 80% finished because
    it didn't have statistics after a battle. then someone said
    that this was a small part, then he said 80 again and blablabla....

    in my point of view if you have 1900 subscribers as this guy has
    (yes, i checked it :lol: ) you at least owe them an
    objective (fair) review.

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    5 years 5 months ago #12 by MikeCK

  • Grunt
  • Grunt

  • Posts: 83
  • Thank you received: 4

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • I have talked to James on several occasions video blog on another website that he used to post on. He's a good guy and means well but he doesn't seem to understand several of the main elements of this game. Back when he reviewed Gettysburg he did not understand that subordinate commanders often do things you don't want them to do and failed to do things that you do want them to do ... And this is by design. He's a good review were generally but I think he misses the mark on SOW games for this reason. Additionally he struggles with the UI which I can certainly understand. I struggle with the UI, the problem being it's extremely difficult to have the control over the entire army that you want without having a complex UI. Not sure anybody else has a better solution so you just have to learn it

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    5 years 5 months ago #13 by HoldTheLine

  • Grunt
  • Grunt

  • Posts: 39
  • Thank you received: 46

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • This review illustrates a point that has become clear to me in the short time I have owned SOWGB and SOWWL, and been reading various opinions and discussions. If a player comes to SOW games with little or no knowledge of chains of command, the tactics of 18-19th century formation based warfare, and how armies were organised, that player can not hope to succeed on the battlefield.

    If the reviewer is at all familiar with military history from practically any period he would know the difficulties of developing a plan that will not only survive contact with the enemy but can be carried out faithfully by subordinate commanders. Hence yes, they won't always do what you want - just like in real life. Yet we can take command, thus even that complaint is rendered moot.

    So without a clear understanding of the SOW approach to command and control and its challenges, without an understanding of basic tactics of maneuver and fire, one would be best entertained with something more along the lines of Napoleon Total War. I'm not casting aspersions at NTW here - I have enjoyed several hours playing it in the past, but did so fully aware it is not intended to be a realistic simulation of horse and musket warfare, but entertainment.

    I can understand someone not being happy with the interface - there are few games where I have totally loved the interface. Many game forums are full of complaints about interfaces, it would appear developers can't even please some of the people all the time. Yet most interfaces become more comfortable with practice. As it is, norbsoft have indicated they're open to suggestions and already considering some improvements.
    The following user(s) said Thank You: Gunfreak, RebBugler, Saddletank

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    5 years 5 months ago #14 by MikeCK

  • Grunt
  • Grunt

  • Posts: 83
  • Thank you received: 4

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • I have always said that SOW is not a battle simulator but is a command simulator . It's meant to simulate what it is like to command an Army,not fight tactics. Therefore you cannot get bogged down in the minutia of Brigade movements or get upset that the brigade is not standing right where you wanted to
    The following user(s) said Thank You: RebBugler

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    5 years 5 months ago #15 by norb-1

  • NSD Dev
  • NSD Dev
  • There is a time for everything

  • Posts: 3716
  • Thank you received: 560

  • Gender: Male
  • Birthdate: 30 Nov 1968
  • This reviewer gave GB a pretty good review. We appreciate every review and there are always going to be some that don't go our way. Thankfully most are very positive.

    NSD Programmer/Producer
    "Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.” - Gamaliel 40 A.D.

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    5 years 5 months ago #16 by Trappeur

  • Grunt
  • Grunt

  • Posts: 21
  • Thank you received: 15

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • A quote of my view of this review as I posted it in his comment section:
    "I bought this game and am having a blast with it. It's the best Napoleonic wargame to date. You have to spend more time with it because it's complex. I always use the Ai and have found it to be very challenging because the Ai characters have their own various abilities that interpret how they will execute orders, that is why the take command option needs to be used to assert your aims at important moments. That is why Wellington spent the day micromanaging every detail of of the battle and riding all over the field and why he famously said "..if anyone else had been in command it wouldn't have been a victory". It's a very realistic sim of an actual napoleonic battle and the confusion and chaos that always ensued historically. That's why Napoleon was such a great General and usually prevailed and why this is such a great game. Historically it was extremely difficult to command during this period and this is the only game that models that challenge, it's genre busting. Your only alternative is a Total war style video game, it's easy if your a god and you just click and everyone goes perfectly and everyone can be a great general. Boring! You have to understand what they succeeded brilliantly with to properly review this game. It is deservedly one of the greatest war games ever."
    The following user(s) said Thank You: tim, RDBoles, RebBugler, Pom, Martin James, Leffe7, Saddletank, HoldTheLine

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    5 years 5 months ago #17 by RebBugler

  • NSD Designer
  • NSD Designer

  • Posts: 3902
  • Thank you received: 1984

  • Gender: Male
  • Birthdate: 07 Feb 1948
  • You nailed it Trappeur, that's what the SOW genre is all about. Sure, we have player control functions, but ya gotta know when to use em', and when to lose em'. It's all about knowing your commanders strengths and weaknesses, then learning to lead them to victory. As someone on the forum recently and acutely pointed out, it's beyond RTS, it's Real Time Command.

    Expanded Toolbar - Grog Waterloo
    Bugles & Flags Gettysburg - Toolbar, Flags, Scenarios and more...
    __________________________________
    In remembrance:
    Eric Schuttler "louie raider" (1970 - 2018)
    John Bonin "2nd Texas Infantry" (1977 - 2012)

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    5 years 5 months ago - 5 years 5 months ago #18 by mitra76

  • NSD Dev
  • NSD Dev

  • Posts: 928
  • Thank you received: 383

  • Gender: Male
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • Marching Thru Georgia wrote: This wasn't one of those.


    This is why sometime is good to understand less than half of a spoken english video :laugh:

    Marching Thru Georgia wrote: Errr...would you mind sending me a copy of unitattributes?


    I know you're impatient to start to mod :) but don't worry SDK is almost here :)

    Visit my wargames blog: warforgame.blogspot.it/
    Last edit: 5 years 5 months ago by mitra76.

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    5 years 5 months ago #19 by IronBMike

  • Regimental Commander
  • Regimental Commander

  • Posts: 310
  • Thank you received: 37

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • HoldTheLine wrote: This review illustrates a point that has become clear to me in the short time I have owned SOWGB and SOWWL, and been reading various opinions and discussions. If a player comes to SOW games with little or no knowledge of chains of command, the tactics of 18-19th century formation based warfare, and how armies were organised, that player can not hope to succeed on the battlefield.

    If the reviewer is at all familiar with military history from practically any period he would know the difficulties of developing a plan that will not only survive contact with the enemy but can be carried out faithfully by subordinate commanders. Hence yes, they won't always do what you want - just like in real life. Yet we can take command, thus even that complaint is rendered moot.

    So without a clear understanding of the SOW approach to command and control and its challenges, without an understanding of basic tactics of maneuver and fire, one would be best entertained with something more along the lines of Napoleon Total War. I'm not casting aspersions at NTW here - I have enjoyed several hours playing it in the past, but did so fully aware it is not intended to be a realistic simulation of horse and musket warfare, but entertainment.

    I can understand someone not being happy with the interface - there are few games where I have totally loved the interface. Many game forums are full of complaints about interfaces, it would appear developers can't even please some of the people all the time. Yet most interfaces become more comfortable with practice. As it is, norbsoft have indicated they're open to suggestions and already considering some improvements.


    Good post. It takes knowledge to play these games. People that play TW games and have no understanding of how militaries actually work(ed) will be clueless. That is why these are wargames.

    CWGII -> SMG -> SMA -> WNLB -> ANGV -> TC -> TC2M -> SOW

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    5 years 5 months ago #20 by kellysheroes

  • Grunt
  • Grunt

  • Posts: 56
  • Thank you received: 1

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • This guy and most of the WARGAMER forum that left have had it in for Norb ever since he had some issues with his ingame partner when they did 2nd Manassas. I wouldn't believe a word he says since he's already a hostile participant. Wait for other worthy reviews like Tom Chick or if he's still around William Trotter.

    There's already a handful over at the Matrixgames site trying to stir up trouble about some of the things that don't look right. They haven't been around the game as long as many of us and they don't know much of what they are talking about. They are trying to say Norb said this and Norb said that when in fact it was someone else.

    I look for armchair general to give it a bad rap too. Many of the old wargamer crowd are associated with arm chair general too. Some guy name Bismark is the pak leader I think.

    BTW The Wargamer suks nowadays. :) They still talkin bout you Norb. Same ole fools and retards like Son of Montfort and Jarhead and most especially Gusington.
    The following user(s) said Thank You: RebBugler

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    5 years 5 months ago #21 by IronBMike

  • Regimental Commander
  • Regimental Commander

  • Posts: 310
  • Thank you received: 37

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • kellysheroes wrote: This guy and most of the WARGAMER forum that left have had it in for Norb ever since he had some issues with his ingame partner when they did 2nd Manassas. I wouldn't believe a word he says since he's already a hostile participant. Wait for other worthy reviews like Tom Chick or if he's still around William Trotter.

    There's already a handful over at the Matrixgames site trying to stir up trouble about some of the things that don't look right. They haven't been around the game as long as many of us and they don't know much of what they are talking about. They are trying to say Norb said this and Norb said that when in fact it was someone else.

    I look for armchair general to give it a bad rap too. Many of the old wargamer crowd are associated with arm chair general too. Some guy name Bismark is the pak leader I think.


    Yeah there is a group of people that have an agenda against Norb because of the Mad Minute drama and drive the criticism. I've met Norb personally and he is an awesome, nice guy. It's a shame that all of that had to play out, but luckily it's a small amount of people who have that (incorrect) view.

    And yeah this "review" is a total joke. Complete garbage.

    CWGII -> SMG -> SMA -> WNLB -> ANGV -> TC -> TC2M -> SOW

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    5 years 5 months ago #22 by Bloody Bill

  • Grunt
  • Grunt

  • Posts: 131
  • Thank you received: 30

  • Gender: Male
  • Birthdate: 13 Feb 1976
  • It is very clear in his review that he is not a veteran SOW player. He does bring up some good points of frustration for new players. The game has a big learning curve and time is needed to get a good grasp upon structure and tactics.

    That being said some of what he says about the AI is not off. I have played SOW for many years and play a lot of MP. SOW GB felt like a more solid game to me than Waterloo. The review is correct about AI adjusting to do strange things, in GB you can manage much easier and the AI seems to handle itself with more confidence.

    I feel the pathing in WL is poor, units kinda go all over and do very strange twists and circle formations. In GB odd things did happen at times but was easy to sort out. In a lot of way WL has the feel of GB combat with Napoleonic uniforms.

    The buildings are a nice addition but is strange to have a battalion march through the wall and not use the gate(visual issue only). I would of liked to have the option to charge into the fortified areas instead of only shooting.

    Artillery is useless at range. I moved my entire I Corps in the attack on the allied center and sustained 4 losses by arty. When I got into 200 yards range I started taking losses and of course canister range. GB had the same problem with arty.

    The new UI I am on the fence with. I like the Grog mod but do not like the normal. The changing of how the mouse works for scrolling is annoying when you play a lot of GB still. Switching between the two is irritating.

    Being a Veteran of the game series with 1000s of hours played I would have to say Waterloo visually is wonderful, gameplay not so much. Not complete feeling to me.

    I would have to recommend to my gaming clan to keep playing GB series of games and the Napoleonic mod for GB and wait for WL to be either patched and completed or modded before adding it to the clan games.
    The following user(s) said Thank You: roy64

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    5 years 5 months ago #23 by Gunfreak

  • Regimental Commander
  • Regimental Commander

  • Posts: 415
  • Thank you received: 57

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • Bloody Bill wrote: It is very clear in his review that he is not a veteran SOW player. He does bring up some good points of frustration for new players. The game has a big learning curve and time is needed to get a good grasp upon structure and tactics.

    That being said some of what he says about the AI is not off. I have played SOW for many years and play a lot of MP. SOW GB felt like a more solid game to me than Waterloo. The review is correct about AI adjusting to do strange things, in GB you can manage much easier and the AI seems to handle itself with more confidence.

    I feel the pathing in WL is poor, units kinda go all over and do very strange twists and circle formations. In GB odd things did happen at times but was easy to sort out. In a lot of way WL has the feel of GB combat with Napoleonic uniforms.

    The buildings are a nice addition but is strange to have a battalion march through the wall and not use the gate(visual issue only). I would of liked to have the option to charge into the fortified areas instead of only shooting.

    Artillery is useless at range. I moved my entire I Corps in the attack on the allied center and sustained 4 losses by arty. When I got into 200 yards range I started taking losses and of course canister range. GB had the same problem with arty.

    The new UI I am on the fence with. I like the Grog mod but do not like the normal. The changing of how the mouse works for scrolling is annoying when you play a lot of GB still. Switching between the two is irritating.

    Being a Veteran of the game series with 1000s of hours played I would have to say Waterloo visually is wonderful, gameplay not so much. Not complete feeling to me.

    I would have to recommend to my gaming clan to keep playing GB series of games and the Napoleonic mod for GB and wait for WL to be either patched and completed or modded before adding it to the clan games.



    In Gettysburg(and 1st bull run and 2nd manassas) The excuse was that ACW artillery was less effective then pervious wars.

    1. I don't a agee it was, yes using 200 cannon in a forest is not a good idea, but claming the 200 guns fireing at Pickets charge only killed 3 guys before they got into canister range is silly.

    A battery of 40 guns fireing on the enemy with clear field of fires killing 5 guys during one hour...


    The same problem is in Waterloo(tho they said arty was more effective)

    180 guns all fireing at a single brigade just 500 yards away kill 30 guys in an hour.

    At 500 yards atleast one guy should die every time a battery fire of all 8 guns.

    Right now, arty are close range weapons only.

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    5 years 5 months ago #24 by Saddletank

  • Division Commander
  • Division Commander

  • Posts: 2171
  • Thank you received: 587

  • Gender: Male
  • Birthdate: 06 Sep 1959
  • Bloody Bill wrote: I feel the pathing in WL is poor, units kinda go all over and do very strange twists and circle formations. In GB odd things did happen at times but was easy to sort out.

    My experience is the exact opposite is true! The pathing in WL is very much improved, partly because the AI deploys it's units further apart and partly through Mitra's more extensive coding. There was some infamously bad stuff in GB like a line of infantry running down the gap between two opposing firing lines and regiments ordered to advance and going via Seskatchewan to get there.

    Bloody Bill wrote: The buildings are a nice addition but is strange to have a battalion march through the wall and not use the gate(visual issue only). I would of liked to have the option to charge into the fortified areas instead of only shooting.

    Bear in mind that melee was useless against fortified buildings. The French attempted it numerous times against Hougoumont, La Haye Sainte and Papelotte and were driven back every time. They only captured Ligny on the 16th June when the Prussian reserves were used up and the Garde attacked fresh at the end of the day. You can't 'bayonet' a stone wall, a solid wooden door or a man shooting from an upper storey window. At Hougoumont the 30 yd wide lane that ran along the south side of the 8-foot high garden wall was a lethal killing zone. The French attempted repeatedly to cross this very narrow open space and were shot down in heaps by just a couple of hundred defenders shooting through loopholes. The French infantry didn't have scaling ladders or grenades. There were some engineers who had axes though. At Waterloo the French brought up artillery to set fire to Hougoumont and still it held out all day, as did Papelotte and La Haye. La Haye Sainte only fell because the garrison ran out of ammunition. I think NSD were right to make firepower the only means of attacking fortified buildings; short range artillery is the best tool for this.

    Bloody Bill wrote: Artillery is useless at range.

    Agreed. This needs modding but fortunately is easy to fix. Remember however that the WL Morning battlefield is very muddy and artillery has less effect than on the Afternoon map. There's numerous accounts of both solid shot and shell burying themselves uselessly in the mud during this battle. It's one reason the Anglo-Dutch Army was able to hold on so long. Make the artillery too powerful and you could critically unbalance the scenarios.

    HITS & Couriers - a different and realistic way to play SoW MP.
    The following user(s) said Thank You: RebBugler

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    5 years 5 months ago #25 by IronBMike

  • Regimental Commander
  • Regimental Commander

  • Posts: 310
  • Thank you received: 37

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • Bloody Bill wrote: It is very clear in his review that he is not a veteran SOW player. He does bring up some good points of frustration for new players. The game has a big learning curve and time is needed to get a good grasp upon structure and tactics.

    That being said some of what he says about the AI is not off. I have played SOW for many years and play a lot of MP. SOW GB felt like a more solid game to me than Waterloo. The review is correct about AI adjusting to do strange things, in GB you can manage much easier and the AI seems to handle itself with more confidence.

    I feel the pathing in WL is poor, units kinda go all over and do very strange twists and circle formations. In GB odd things did happen at times but was easy to sort out. In a lot of way WL has the feel of GB combat with Napoleonic uniforms.

    The buildings are a nice addition but is strange to have a battalion march through the wall and not use the gate(visual issue only). I would of liked to have the option to charge into the fortified areas instead of only shooting.

    Artillery is useless at range. I moved my entire I Corps in the attack on the allied center and sustained 4 losses by arty. When I got into 200 yards range I started taking losses and of course canister range. GB had the same problem with arty.

    The new UI I am on the fence with. I like the Grog mod but do not like the normal. The changing of how the mouse works for scrolling is annoying when you play a lot of GB still. Switching between the two is irritating.

    Being a Veteran of the game series with 1000s of hours played I would have to say Waterloo visually is wonderful, gameplay not so much. Not complete feeling to me.

    I would have to recommend to my gaming clan to keep playing GB series of games and the Napoleonic mod for GB and wait for WL to be either patched and completed or modded before adding it to the clan games.


    I find that I prefer the Waterloo AI.

    CWGII -> SMG -> SMA -> WNLB -> ANGV -> TC -> TC2M -> SOW
    The following user(s) said Thank You: RebBugler

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    5 years 5 months ago #26 by Bloody Bill

  • Grunt
  • Grunt

  • Posts: 131
  • Thank you received: 30

  • Gender: Male
  • Birthdate: 13 Feb 1976
  • Saddletank: Because it was difficult to melee a fortified position you think it should not be an option? If melee into the building causes an issue with the game I understand but if not than why not let the commander decide how he wants his men to die.

    I have play WL for only four hours or so. My opinion may change but please take it that it is just my opinion as a WarGamer. I do not do code or anything. I may like GB better because I am comfortable with it. I will not stop playing WL and will give it a fair try these are just my initial observations.

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    5 years 5 months ago - 5 years 5 months ago #27 by NY Cavalry

  • Brigade Commander
  • Brigade Commander

  • Posts: 530
  • Thank you received: 115

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
  • I am a longtime SOW user and happily promote and defend the system when needed. I very much like SOW WL it gives us what we expected. In its favor, I can say that the coding has been solid, The AI is not the Civil War Ai, but adapted for Napoleonics, the game looks very good visually, the support team members are constantly on the forumns giving top notch service to end users and potential users.
    I will also say that Bloody Bill's concerns are not without merit. I do not concure with all his points, but I do some some.

    The game play is not as smooth as Gettysburg and some tweaks are needed. The game is not broke and is very playable. I endorse it, but lets look at the facts for what they are.

    The team has done a great job and being responsive is part of that.
    Last edit: 5 years 5 months ago by NY Cavalry.
    The following user(s) said Thank You: RDBoles, RebBugler, roy64

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    5 years 5 months ago #28 by Saddletank

  • Division Commander
  • Division Commander

  • Posts: 2171
  • Thank you received: 587

  • Gender: Male
  • Birthdate: 06 Sep 1959
  • Bill - thanks. I completely take your point. An option to attempt to charge fortified building gates would be fantastic. I guess with such a very short development time these nice extras had to be back-burnered. I hope patches may address some of these issues.

    I agree with NYC that the dev team presence on the forum is a huge bonus. So many devs just release a game, pocket the $$$ and go swanning off.

    HITS & Couriers - a different and realistic way to play SoW MP.

    Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

    Moderators: RebBuglergunship24Leffe7Sargonpaul9038