New review from "Out of Eight"

[Major Damage]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KdMiP8BH9g

"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,

[con20or]

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.

[Marching Thru Georgia]

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.

[ADukes]

The same reviewer that did GB and CV, or his not so smart twin?

http://www.outofeight.info/2010/04/scou ... eview.html
http://www.outofeight.info/2012/11/scou ... ville.html

[con20or]

Maybe the new UI threw him? Hard to say.

[NY Cavalry]

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..........
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.as ... 25&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.

[Gunfreak]

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.

[mitra76]

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).

[Marching Thru Georgia]

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?

[Xreos1]

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.