Message for the devs (also posted on steam)

miller3492 · Post by **miller3492** » Sat Sep 03, 2016 3:08 am

I have been buying Norbsoft Games ever Since I beleive they were mad minute games. Scourge of war has easily become one of my fav RTS games but one thing is missing. I would love a Total war style campaign- and would litteraly pay any price for it. The sand box campaign is bad (sorry). It doesnt have to be a detailed campaign. I would be happy with a campaign like imperial glory. Imperial glory has a a very basic campaign map but gets the job done. basically Recruit units- and fight battles on the 3d map to hold terriroty. Just make it an easy clean UI. But please consider this. It is litterally the only thing missing from my fav game

Chichetr · Post by **Chichetr** » Sun Sep 04, 2016 7:44 pm

I honestly hope that this game is not demoted to a Total War style campaign. Recruiting units, micromanaging economy, managing diplomacy are not the point of this game at all. In fact, I find that style of game infuriating and was ecstatic that a game studio had the courage to break the mold.

The point of this game is very large, very, very historically accurate BATTLES waged on large, accurate maps.

I don't know about anyone else but if they were to add unit recruitment, economy, diplomacy...etc., I would be devastated. The sandbox campaign is a great fun addition to the game and get's the job done.

DarkRob · Post by **DarkRob** » Mon Sep 05, 2016 7:45 am

I honestly hope that this game is not demoted to a Total War style campaign. Recruiting units, micromanaging economy, managing diplomacy are not the point of this game at all. In fact, I find that style of game infuriating and was ecstatic that a game studio had the courage to break the mold.

The point of this game is very large, very, very historically accurate BATTLES waged on large, accurate maps.

I don't know about anyone else but if they were to add unit recruitment, economy, diplomacy...etc., I would be devastated. The sandbox campaign is a great fun addition to the game and get's the job done.

I agree totally. Not what this game is about. There are plenty of operational level games on the civil war out there. The Scourge of war series, as well as those that came before it are unique as real time tactical games. There isn't anything else out there like SOW and I hope they always keep the focus on real time battle. If I want to play civil war monopoly theres other titles that specialize in that.

Saddletank · Post by **Saddletank** » Mon Sep 05, 2016 12:19 pm

I think there is scope for something between the two. Taking the 100 Days as an example a pre-campaigning phase where the player as Wellington, Blucher or Napoleon could organise their corps and divisions and place them on a grand-strategy map and establish magazines and garrisons, then switch to a lower level strategy map to conduct the marching and fighting would be a fresh idea and a nice compromise.

The 'what if' is taken not just from possibilities that could have unfolded when Napoleon gave the first orders to march on Charleroi but to a higher level on how he could have defeated the Allies in Belgium using different approaches.

Wellington and Blucher could also devise different defensive strategies.

The basic sandbox campaign also needs a different speed clock - real time just does not work (Brussels to Quatre Bras in 30 minutes isn't good), so the forces need a faster moving clock operationally and real time tactically. This way you also would not get forces 'locked' in a battle for 2 hours while your other corps are moving on.

Admittedly this is a whole new game but it is again something that no other game has attempted.

And, oh yeah, MP campaign between about 4 players with battles a player can host as MP then go back to the campaign map.

Capt Saucier · Post by **Capt Saucier** » Wed Sep 07, 2016 12:33 am

The scope of the sandbox campaign is, in my opinion, about right. I think most agree that it is too simplistic. The actual campaign was short by Napoleonic standards, but very interesting. Much could be done regarding awarding of victory points; for example, taking rear areas used as depots or lines of communication. This is why Napoleon feinted towards the coast as a diversion holding Wellington in place for a while. This creates interesting decisions for a commander. Do I protect these areas and delay concentration or concentrate? Wellington had strict orders to protect Brussels. If as Wellington, you decide to uncover Brussels to concentrate with Blucher, and Brussels is taken, there must be a large penalty, such as losing the Dutch-Belgian part of his army or being required to send part of the British force to Antwerp, evening the scales with Napoleon. In the present sandbox campaign, there is little reason not to concentrate other then playing the version to hold the majority of towns, if I am remembering correctly.

Personally, I don't want to get involved in the logistics of raising funds to equip armies and considering the many econonomic issues that running a country may entail. Instead, start with the armies raised and make challenging objectives for that army to achieve. As another example, the 1806 "Jena" campaign effectively started in mid September and lasted until the end of October, including the pursuit phase after the main battles. This is about the right scope for me.

I would pay a lot to get something like this! I think SOWWL is a great game. It could be much more interesting with an enhanced campaign engine.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 3:49 pm

Scourge of War Boards

Message for the devs (also posted on steam)

Message for the devs (also posted on steam)

Re: Message for the devs (also posted on steam)

Re: Message for the devs (also posted on steam)

Re: Message for the devs (also posted on steam)

Re: Message for the devs (also posted on steam)

Re: Message for the devs (also posted on steam)