We Understand!

[norb]

We know that we have mostly ACW fans here at SOW. We knew that some would be disappointed. Consider this just another step in improving the engine. We weren't quite ready to tackle our very ambitious plans for our next ACW game. We felt that this was a good in between along the way. We were closer to the functionality of Waterloo, then the next ACW. So we took a lot of what we were planning on doing and came up with this idea. We also listened to a lot of fans and other's whom opinion we respect and decided as a team to move our focus.

With Waterloo we really have a chance to test the modding of the engine. That is one major focus of this release. We needed to be able to handle more uniforms, that's done I'm happy to say. Tim is still creating them, but the functionality is there. We needed to incorporate threading in the engine to pick up the speed. That's partially done. We also got another programmer on the team. You all know pakfront's tools from the boards, but he also knows a lot about graphics, something that I am sorely juvenile on. He doesn't know the game language as well, but between the two of we are going to make a better game. Jim is still heading up all the major design and he's got a list for me a mile long. Matt is heading up the maps and scenarios and Randy is going to kick your butt again Jolly and Tim are working on the maps as well and they are beautiful! Best textures ever. Flany is going to keep everyone updated, as he's agreed to help out with our marketing, we really need help in this area. With him you should finally get some regular updates on our progress. Larry, with some help from Matt and I, is working on the campaign design. It's an area he's passionate about and we'll work together to make something easy to use and fun to play. Our new Waterloo experts, Mitra, Gunship, Riccardo, Alberto, bring a lot of knowledge to the table, helping and advising us as we move forward. Mitra is especially focusing on the AI, trying to work on the new modding capability (already complete) and see what's going to have to change to tackle Waterloo. Everyone is pretty new and finding their place. We like to see where people fit in and work towards their strengths. We need the manpower to test, but we also make sure that there is opportunity in other areas if people want to step up. Conor is our lead QA and this will be his first major release in that role. He's also your Courier advocate. Takes a while to send one from Ireland to New Jersey, but so far they are working out well. Our core test team of Chuck, JC, John, Dave, will be trying to break the game for the next year. New faces of Scott, Stefan, Steve, Flany, and Jim are helping out with testing and trying to find a home in the development process. As always Oliver and DaveD are answering your questions on our sites with Randy making sure the Matrix questions are answered. Oliver is going to help with the new gui toolkit for the game and also making sure that our localization works. DaveD is our in house tech support and knows the systems that keep the team running. Russell is slated to do all the GUI artwork, and Tim as always is doing the units, textures, SOW site when we're ready, and every other art task that requires any skill

There's a lot of other hats people wear and I'm sure I didn't get them all. But you can see that it takes a ton to make these games and it's a true team effort. It will get tougher once we have to pick and choose which features make the cut, but the core is set. It's a SOW game and that means there's a level of quality and historical accuracy that must be met. On that there is no compromise.

So please support us how you can and ask your questions, make your points. Help us meet our goals. Thank you!

[kaschykb]

Well obviously I was one to voice my disappointment over the Waterloo announcement. Just to clarify I'm not angry and I don't hate the decision but I'm an ACW junkie and I had to admit I was disappointed. I'm sure I'll come around over the next year and will enjoy Waterloo when it is released.

It's heartening to hear you still have future plans for ACW. Maybe you can make it up to us diehards with a western theater battle next time

[Saddletank]

Thanks Norb. I think one of the things the community has been talking about and asking for for a long time is a campaign. People have grown up on Total War and their campaign system. Its not perfect by any means and in many ways the tech tree and building tree aspects are inappropriate for the Napoleonic (and ACW) period but wargamers have always enjoyed fighting battles in context over battles in a vacuum. There can be a good reason to keep a reserve or to retreat or to fight for so many hours and delay an enemy, then fall back. All of this is absent in battles fought outside of any wider context.

I can dream one day of a whole map of N America with flags marking the Union and Confederate armies as they march from Florida to Gettysburg and from Pea Ridge to Gaines Mill and when the armies meet the player is zoomed into an SoW battlefield with the sprites deployed and ready to do battle, with your friends logging in online to take up the different commands on both sides. I'm sure that's one of your dreams too.

We have to walk before we can run though and I think the choice of Waterloo where you can develop a campaign engine is a good choice. From the French crossing of the Belgian border on the night of the 14th/15th June to the collapse and retreat from Waterloo at 8pm on 18th June was only 5 days. The area the armies moved in was a square of fairly flat Belgian farmland broken by woods and small rivers without any major city apart from Brussels and no major fortress and no more than 100 miles on each side, so as a camapign limited in time and geography its a good example to begin with.

After this you can go on to do justice to a Seven Days campaign in 1862 and then bigger campaigns around Shiloh, Corinth, Chatanooga, the Shenandoah Valley, etc.

I'm hoping I'm right in seeing where the future lies and if I am then some very exciting times are ahead.

[norb]

Well obviously I was one to voice my disappointment over the Waterloo announcement. Just to clarify I'm not angry and I don't hate the decision but I'm an ACW junkie and I had to admit I was disappointed. I'm sure I'll come around over the next year and will enjoy Waterloo when it is released.

It's heartening to hear you still have future plans for ACW. Maybe you can make it up to us diehards with a western theater battle next time

Don't worry, you're not the only one. We've been hearing it from all sides. But we need the criticism as much as the praise. It let's us know that you're keeping an eye on what we do and it makes us try harder to make sure that any changes we put in won't affect the ACW game.

[Xreos1]

I am new to SOW, but not new to war-gaming. My first game was Avlon Hill's Gettysburg. Also collected SPI games including Terrible Swift Sword (Gettysburg) and Waterloo.
From Sid Myers games to strategy first's Napoleon's Last Battle, I have gobbled them up. The one thing I always found lacking was the campaign aspect.

The way you are doing Waterloo is the way it should be done. Ligny and Quate Bras determined how Waterloo would be fought. Grouchey's pursuit ( or lack there of) was of vital importance. Ignoring these aspects makes a different game.

As a first try at a campaign this is one to do, a simple short campaign, either Napoleon wins, or it is all over. Lee on the other hand, while losing the battle at Gettysburg, continued the war 2 more years.

[Squid_UK]

I can see why some might be disappointed in a hiatus in SOW as far as the ACW goes. I would love more battles and maps etc. But the news that the engine is going to tackle Napoleonics, specifically Waterloo more than makes up for it.

Before I got SOW I only had a passing interest in the ACW. I bought the game though because of my frustration with titles like NTW. I was looking for a realistic period game and SOW delivered that in bucket loads. As a result my background knowledge and interest in the AWC grew as I read around the battles I was fighting in the game.

There is a massive gap in the market for a decent Napoleonics Tactical Game. Histwar is great but has its issues and whilst I admire its originality it isnt a patch on the current SOW system. Even Histwar 2 looks like it will be more of the same.

For those that dont have an interest in Napoleonics I would encourage them to look at it as a tactical challenge. The men might have different uniforms, weapons and languages but the tactics (and gameplay) wont be massively different to what you have now. The fringe benefits are that all the enhancements that get put into SOW-W will be passed back down to SOWGB. The biggest to my mind would be the map SDK, which if we are honest with ourselves is the biggest hinderance to us getting (insert favourite civil war action) into the game.

In all I am incredibly excited, not just because its Napoleonics, but as a side effect the Civil war franchise will explode too.

[Xreos1]

I am very new to SOW and still learning so my point of view may differ from experienced users.

There are some minor, let's say annoyances, that confront the new user, that should be addressed in the release of Waterloo.

Indifferent officers: way too often when scrolling up, down, or sideways through the chain of command I find my general is facing the rear, seemingly uninterested in what is happening to his command. The default for generals should always end with the general's LOS overlooking his command in the direction of the enemy.

Suicide Officers: In one battle Gen. Pettigrew was killed because I gave Gen. Heath an attack the enemy to your front order and Pettigrew advanced 150 yards ahead of his command right into the middle of 3 Union regiments. These officers are moving under the direction of the AI system, there needs to be modification to the system to a default of keeping Officers behind their units (player over-ride allowed).

Supply Wagons: I understand that supply wagons are tied to Division Commanders. Include a Commissary Officer (visible or not) that is tied xxx yards behind division commander but must remain xxx yards from nearest enemy.

Skirmishers: Deploying skirmishers should be automatic in Probe, Advance and Attack mode, but not necessarily for All Out Attack.

Courier System: A noble feature that is most frustrating. Streamlining is needed here. Hours of searching the forums to get a handle on it's use is not good. Include a tutorial on using the courier system, and follow it up with a sticky on the forum.

I know a lot about the battle of Gettysburg (I have visited there several times) but off the top of my head I cannot tell you who commanded the second brigade of the 1st division of the 2nd corps. If absolute historical accuracy is the only goal, then keep the current system. If you want to attract a more casual audience I suggest a more user friendly approach. (Do you really want to spend all that time memorizing OOB's for 3 armies?)

The current set up is a one size fits all. My single player experience so far is "Me" is the senior commander and even if I take command of a subordinate, then compose an order it comes from "Me", the senior commander. The subordinate I took over is 200 yards from the recipient but the courier starts from the "Me" over a mile away. Perhaps a change is needed so when you take command, orders come from the current officer. The current 'static' order system should be changed to a 'dynamic' system.

A better drill down for recipients is needed. As army commander the first screen including every possible unit I can command is confusing. The Army commander gives orders to Corps Commanders and when the Army Commander gives orders to a division commander he is either in direct LOS or the order goes through Corps.

If fundamental changes cannot be made to the courier system could we at least get indents?
Army Commander
___Corps Commander
_____Division Commander
_________Brigade Commander
_________Brigade Commander
etc.

[Saddletank]

Good points, Xreos1. However can I suggest you open a new thread in the Waterloo section and we can use that as a community suggestions thread.

Plenty of officers got themselves killed or captured by doing "stupid" things like riding out in front of their commands. It happened often and while it looks stupid to us and can be frustrating, war has always been like that and its not always obvious to the AI where an enemy is. I personally enjoy the randomness the game can sometimes throw up.

An NSD person would need to give a definitive answer here but I do not think the facing of an officer affects what he can see. I think they have a 360 degree field of awareness.

I agree a good tutorial on courier use is lacking. Perhaps MTG could write one? He's the courier guru.

[norb]

Thank you Xreos1. Our team grabs many ideas off of the boards and puts them in our tracking system. We are very interested to hear how we can make the game friendlier.

[Marching Thru Georgia]

I wrote a courier tutorial a while ago. Here is the link: Courier Tutorial
You'll find a number of threads in the HITS sub-forum that address courier use. Also the Courier&Maps mod makes courier use much easier than the stock setup.