Whats Next?

[Destraex]

Waterloo?....Not interested

Why? Soldiers are soldiers right?
I am assuming though that you are only interested in the (american) civil war for some reason?

[Davinci]

Well, I’m not that particularly interested in the Napoleon War , but that is really only a small gripe.

I don’t see any reason why the Cavalry-units can’t be removed while adding in Civil-War soldiers, and artillery units will not be possible.

After all, the battle tactics are very similar and all of the officers studied the Napoleon tactics of battle.

I think that this is a good business decision and hope that NSD makes this work.

This game and the two previous games has always been extremely Mod-Friendly so I don’t see any reason why that won’t continue to happen.

davinci

[Destraex]

I am half way through the interview. But they mention a sandbox mode that lets you zoom out to a campaign map that IS NOT abstracted like total war. They have something in mind along the lines of NATO style symbols for this. They are hoping if they succeed with this zoom out style map that you will be able to play all of the battles surrounding waterloo and waterloo on your own terms with whatever forces you actually manage to get there.

The game is due on the anniversary of waterloo in 2015 so whatever they have finished by then will be in game.

They have a dedicated employee from the mod community making MOD tools so that people will be able to make there own maps with a map tool and modify the AI. They apparently after waterloo do not want to have to program the AI again themselves for whatever expansions they do. They are aware that from the start of the napoleonic wars to the end tactics changed markedly and thus the AI and formations must do so as well... meaning great changes to the AI.

Apparently they have had to think of a whole new way of getting sprite uniforms in game because of the shere variety of uniforms napoleonic warfare has in comparison to the ACW.

Considering the well established napoleonic mod for scourge of war gettysburg imho this waterloo game is a no brainer.

You take the reasonable graphics of the scourge of war engine and hopefully the continuation of COOP multiplay with the combined arms tactics necessary for napoleonic warfare and this is a no brainer for me.

However for people who are fans of the scourge of war games and it's (american) civil war content this could be a deal breaker for them. Even the devs themselves seem to only just be learning the basics of napoleonic warfare. Thus they have apparently brought on some experts with the similar passion to their civil war fans. To the extent of saying that some napoleonic experts are even more crazy than civil war experts. One guy they have used to or currently goes past the waterloo battlefield every morning!!

What will be interesting is how this shapes up against histwar 2. When is histwar 2 out?

The pics from the video that norbsoft showed...





P.S. Do the current scourge of war features compare to histwar?
http://www.histwar.com/game/features.html

[Jack ONeill]

Destraex has an excellent point here, but I think this is a huge business decision. As Tank has pointed out, there are zillions of Napoleonic gamers in Europe. Histwar has never been a great seller, and I think it is because of the general difficulty of getting started with the gameplay itself. SOWGB's tutorials are outstanding in getting people into the fighting quickly. If the New game, (which we shall call SOWWaterloo for now), has that same general easy-to-get-going learning curve as SOWGB it will smoke anything out there, as the NapMod has already shown. IMHO.

Jack B)

[Saddletank]

If you're not familiar with the wars of Napoleon's time don't go into them thinking they are complex tactically or are highly varied because of an apparently bewildering range if troop types. I don't believe tactics changed very much at all from the late 1790s to 1815. Apart from a couple of minor technical inventions, weapon systems did not change, siege and fortification systems and methods did not change, cavalry tactical use did not change (all of these in contrast to the ACW). What did happen in the early 1790s was that France employed a new form of warfare which centred around mass mobilisation of a citizen army (instead of small professional armies of the Ancien Regime states of Frederick the Great's time of the 1750s-1760s). The French also introduced the corps concept whereby parts of a large army could be broken up into smaller self-sufficient strategic manouver units each under the command of a trusted officer, of balanced all-arms and including their own engineer, artillerym ambulance and pontoon echelons. These were totally new concepts to the Frederickan system. On the actual battlefield not a great deal changed other than an increased tempo of movement and the use of more skirmishers by the French. Contrary to what some people think, skirmish infantry was well known to all European powers since at least the middle of the previous century - the British for example discovered how useful they were while losing the war in their former American colonies - but the French used skirmishing infantry in a completely new tactical manner. What bewildered the Generals and politicians of the various Coalition forces arrayed against the French was the changes at a strategic level with the ability of the Revolutionary armies to move rapidly across Europe without cumbersome supply trains and to concentrate a large number of men quckly for battle. Many French victories were won, or as good as won, at the strategic level without a shot being fired. Austerlitz was really lost by the Austro-Russians before it started because of strategic flanking moves Napoleon was able to do, as was the defeat of the Prussians at the twin battles of Jena-Auerstadt the following year. The Austrian General Mack was forced to capitulate his entire army at Ulm in 1805 when he was outmanouvered on the strategic level.

On the battlefield the Revolutioary Wars and early Napoleonic Wars saw the new columnar and mass skirmishing tactics of the French surprise and dumbfound the Austrians, Russians and Prussians who operated smaller armies under linear, Frederickan principles.

Later on as the various Coalition allies were forced to adapt to the new form of warfare they too adopted the army corps system, general staffs of varying ability and effectiveness (the Prussians made particularly effective advances in army command), column tactics, more flexible rapid movement and dense skirmish screens. So there were no big tactical changes during the wars, it was more that Napoleon's enemies adopted the tactics he was already using against them.

While there was a bewildering range of troop types and names, remember we are looking here at no less than seven major combatants (France, Austria, Russia, Prussia, Britain, Spain, Sweden) and about 20 minor ones, mostly German and Italian states but also including Portugal, Switzerland, Denmark, Holland, Belgium and Poland) so language variation brings in many different names, but essentially infantry was of three types, cavalry of two and artillery of two.

Line infantry (musketeers, fusiliers, etc) were the equivalent of the basic ACW infantry and did all the tasks ACW regiments did.

Light infantry (voltigeurs, chasseurs, jager, grenzer, British riflemen, etc) were the equivalent of basic ACW infantry but extended out into skirmish formation. The function they performed though was somewhat different in that they were expected to advance in great numbers ahead of an attacking formation and push back the enemy's skirmishers if he had them, or move up to his main infantry line and disrupt it by sniping officers and causing a rate of losses that while low, was steady and inexorable and to which the line infantry had no effective reply except to advance with the bayonet to drive the skirmishers back, or withdraw, both of which options might be unsatisfactory to a defender of a prepared position.

Elite infantry (guards, grenadiers, etc) were held back to be used as a critical attack force at the chosen moment when an enemy was starting to collapse, to plug and hold the line when it was weakening under enemy pressure, to be a powerful reserve or to hold a critical defensive position such as the British foot guards light companies did at Hougoumont farm at Waterloo. Apart from the famous brigades of the ACW such as the Stonewall or Iron brigades, there was no equivalent in the ACW and in that war the good quality troops were not used with the same tactical ethic.

Confusingly the different nations might use the same name for different troop types. The fusilier in
France was the basic line infantryman (he carried a fusil, the French word for musket), while in Prussia the fusilier was a light infantryman capable of close order or skirmish deployment. In Prussia as in Russia the vanilla line infantryman was a musketeer. In Britain the 3 or 4 'fuzileer' regiments they had were classed as elite infantry.

Cavalry was divided into heavy and light. Heavies (cuirasiers, dragoons, horse guards, etc) were intended only to smash the enemy with massed charges on the battlefield. They were incredibly expensive to raise, train and maintain and needed the finest biggest horses. Due to the horses becoming exhausted or 'blown' after a charge such cavalry could only really manage one or two charges in a battle. They were like missiles, powerful in use but once employed you had used up your ammo. They were intended to overthrow wavering enemy infantry who had already been weakened by artillery bombardment or infantry attacks. They could also drive away an enemy's cavalry.

Light cavalry (light dragoons, chasseurs, cheveaulegers, lancers, cossacks, hussars, mounted jagers, etc) were smaller men on slightly smaller horses and were a little more manouverable. They could do all that heavy cavalry could only with less punch but their main utility was before battles when scouting, patrolling and seeking out the enemy army while protecting their own, and after the battle when used in pursuit of a fleeing enemy. I'd consider all ACW cavalry to be 'light' cavalry.

For cultural and social reasons specific to Europe, cavalry never dismounted on the European battlefield. A few units and tactical manuals were able to do so such as French dragoons and Russian mounted jager but in practive these minor efforts had no impact and to have all cavalry non-dismountable in a Napoleonic wargame would do no harm and would simplify things a lot. Like some SoW scenarios already do, dismounted cavalry can be represented in game with infantry units but these would almost always be skirmishers and French dragoons would make a good dismounted cav skirmisher troop type.

Artillery was divided into foot artillery with dismounted gunners and horse artillery where the gunners rode into battle mounted on horseback. The horse artillery was able to move and deploy rapidly and could be attached to cavalry divisions and corps to give a horsed formation considerable punch. On the battlefield foot artillery held a defensive line with canister fire or pounded an enemy line at longer range with solid iron roundshot or explosive shell. The British invented an airbust round named after its creator, Major Shrapnel, that could be fired by their long guns or howitzers. It was somewhat more efficient than normal spherical shell which might bury itself in the mud or soil before exploding. The British also had Rocket Artillery but there were only ever a couple of batteries of these employed in Spain and the rockets were wildly inaccurate. They were good at scaring horses (usually their own) or setting fire to towns but were not much use otherwise. Horse artillery (and even foot artillery) could be used in a tactically offensive manner by bounding forwards towards an enemy line supported by cavalry or infantry and used at short range to pulverise an enemy with canister. Napoleon's artillery commanders are said to have invented the 'artillery charge'.

All weapons both handguns and artillery were smoothbores. The only exceptions were a small number of light skirmishing infantry used by Britain and in some other nations, mostly Germans where some Jagers or sharpshooter platoons of light regiments were rifled armed. Essentially though the only nation that fully embraced the extra range and accuracy of the rifle was Britain with her famous two regiments, the 95th Rifles and the 5th battalion of the 60th Regiment. In addition the Baker rifle was issued to the two battalions of light infantry of the King's German Legion (Hanoverian emigres in British pay) and the elite companies of the 12 newly raised Portuguese cacadore regiments. These units however never appeared to train their men to be marksmen and pick off high value targets at long range.

A feature of many Napoleonic battles was the bitter fighting around villages, farms, churches and other strong buildings like granaries. Waterloo had at least four places where bitter combats around buildings went on for a long time and this seems to have been in contrast to combat in the ACW where street fighting appears to have been largely avoided. Having a means to represent occupying buildings and attempting to storm them is a must for a Napoleonic wargame simulation.

Napoleonic battlefield combat has been described as a game of rock-paper-scissors where the three arms each has its own strengths and weaknesses and the key to victory is often to use them in ways that compliment their strengths and in support of each other. This 'tactical puzzle' is probably the biggest difference between Napoleonic and ACW warfare. The second big difference is the almost completely open and flat battlefields of Europe. For reasons of exerting control and authority and ensuring order, armies avoided fighting in wooded areas and often only skirmishing infantry would fight in such terrain.

The Russians and to a lesser extent the Austrians were prone to build earthwork redoubts the day or night before they intended to fight a defensive battle. Usually these contained artillery but could also be defended by infantry. Such redoubts often became the scenes of much bitter fighting such as at Borodino in 1812 and a wargame simulation that allowed such defenses to be placed on the map prior to (not during!) a battle would be a very cool feature.

[Destraex]

Wow saddletank. Nice post. I must admit that I would need, being no expert on civil war matters, a complimentary post detailing how civil war battlefield tactics were more complex and how they changed.

With regard to Napoleonic cavalry. A lot will include a medium cavalry type or alternately nominate some cavalry units as super heavy. You also have nation specific cavalry like Cossacks which are almost in their own category for capability at least on their home turf.

I certainly agree that skirmishing was well known by the time of the Napoleonic wars while being recognized simultaneously as being almost reinvented by Napoleonic armies.

Waterloo is a significant choice of battle in that the French army was a shadow of its former self and a fair portion of French troops were not according.to.some.texts capable of the.complex.manoevers the earlier French Napoleonic armies were. So perhaps we will see Marie Louise having no choice but to use basics such as the column.

Certainly the basic weapons of the Napoleonic war did not change. But I agree this aids the view that command of the army was.much more.important than technology.

Cannons on average for larger and were used in a more organized fashion as an highly flexible arm in comparison to previous.



Iirc he 60th light infantry werecalled the Americans?

[gunship24]

Iirc he 60th light infantry were called the Americans?

Yep, or Royal American to be precise. Formed from mostly German and Swiss settlers serving in North America. Trans-Atlantic bounding maybe? The 5th battalion, part of Wellington's force in Portugal, were dressed in green and armed with rifles and recruited mostly from hunters and people with good aim.

[conjotter]

Releasing Waterloo is a great idea for both gamers and the company. Looking forward to it.

The number of battles, countries, uniforms involved once they get into the Napoleonic period could be almost limitless.

And I would imagine there will be some tactical changes to the game system to deal with skirmishers, cavalry charges, forming square, etc.

Once this era is nailed down, it would be easy for Norb or modders to use Waterloo to make battles from the War of 1812, Revolutionary War, War with Mexico etc.

I don't quite understand why anyone would oppose this. Most civil war leaders cut their teeth learning Napoleonic tactics at West Point, etc.

[Marching Thru Georgia]

Saddletank gave an excellent overview of Napoleonic warfare and its complexity. It points out the daunting road NSD has embarked upon. Moving from ACW which was fought largely using the linear tactics of the Seven Years War to the integrated warfare of the early 19th century will be a huge step. Whether NSD can pull that feat off in the limited time they have given themselves is an open question. But regardless of when it is released, if anyone can create an AI that makes you really believe you are on the European fields of 1815 and wish you weren't, it's Norb.

[Saddletank]

Yup, its a pretty daunting thing vs ACW combat, but as the podcast explained, once this v2 SOW engine is written, it's planned to hand over the tools and modules to the modding community so we can build new maps, OOBs, battle AI variations, etc. Norb and his guys can then return to the ACW and reissue some of the great battles from that war but using the updated engine. Cavalry and infantry AI would need to be adjusted and the rifled weapons reintroduced but I don't see that as being a problem.

There was lots of talk about a campaign system which from what I could gather would not run at the abstract/political level of Total War's campaigns but at a more grand tactical level where the individual units are still seen on the map instead of submerged into armies as TW does.

For designing a campaign system the Waterloo campaign makes a good basis as it was short in duration and limited in geography. My only concern here is that computer code designed to handle such a limited area and number of troops might struggle to be translated into a bigger setting such as the Peninsular War or the German or Russian campaigns of 1813 and 1812 which covered much bigger distances, time periods of up to several years and armies of upwards of a million men. I'd personally prefer a 'bigger picture' slightly abstracted campaign where a turn was a week or more, but if a campaign engine could be written that was scalable (like the battlefield sprite ratio makes the battles scalable) and had modules like politics/diplomacy that could be enabled or disabled as needed, that would be extremely interesting.