Scourge of War: Waterloo! announced

[Toonces]

I saw this over at The Wargamer's Club for Gentlemen.  It's a free 3-pdf bundle of Wargames Magazine featuring the battles of the 100 days (or something like that).  You have to register to download them, which held me up; I'm not in the mood for that right now.  Still, can't beat the price.

http://www.karwansaraypublishers.com/shop/waterloo-bundle.html

[ArizonaTank]

Is there anything to clean up?  Isn't that the whole point of the game system.  You depend on the subordinates and they don't always do what you ask.  SOW wants to put you in a somewhat real-life position of the commanders on the ground.  You have to plan around the people under you.  Its not miniatures where all men are at your beck and call.

If that is the intent, then it is poorly and frustratingly implemented.  Of course commanders delaying execution of their orders, or being slow in carrying them out were typical problems on the 19th century battlefields.  It did happen that commanders would completely blow their orders off, but was kind of a rare event.  Maybe once in a campaign.  Dan Sickles at Gettysburg comes to mind.  But in SOWWL it seems to happen quite frequently just in one battle. 

Also, if local initiative is what they are trying to portray, the implementation is frustrating because it puts the player in a "fight" for control...that just in no way feels historical.  ie. having to keep issuing the same orders over and over.  To me, it feels more like Dr. Strangelove fighting with his hand, than a command simulation.

No, IMHO, this needs to be fixed or at least tweaked...otherwise I fear SOWWL will not be remembered for long.

[Cyrano]

This "feature not a bug" debate re: TacAI is not a new one here.  I remember it most fondly (not) in re: CMx1 where, as every schoolboy knows, you can't alter orders for a whole minute and folks went half mad complaining about units disengaging, firing erratically, &c.

I've played a lot of SoW:G, but usually in KS's with the couriers on.  There, as a division commander, I'll admit I did an awful lot of micro-managing, but felt the pace of the game was sufficiently languid that I really never felt rushed.  Is it the general perception that this is worse in SoW:W?

As things stand, I think Norbsoft has shown itself to be strong in support of its projects and will work to tweak as matters go forward.  In an area like this, it strikes me as a painfully fine balance between just enough and too much...

Best,

Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)

[RyanE]

My reference is ACW...any number of battles featured commanders doing exactly the opposite of their orders.   Gettysburg had a number of commanders that attacked when ordered specifically to not expose themselves.

My understanding was it happened in the Nap battles as well, especially with cavalry commanders seeking glory.

[panzerde]

This "feature not a bug" debate re: TacAI is not a new one here.  I remember it most fondly (not) in re: CMx1 where, as every schoolboy knows, you can't alter orders for a whole minute and folks went half mad complaining about units disengaging, firing erratically, &c.

I've played a lot of SoW:G, but usually in KS's with the couriers on.  There, as a division commander, I'll admit I did an awful lot of micro-managing, but felt the pace of the game was sufficiently languid that I really never felt rushed.  Is it the general perception that this is worse in SoW:W?

As things stand, I think Norbsoft has shown itself to be strong in support of its projects and will work to tweak as matters go forward.  In an area like this, it strikes me as a painfully fine balance between just enough and too much...

Having played vanilla SOWGB and the expansions for years, my sense is that the commander AI in SOWWL is considerably more "independent." A lot of my play in SOWGB was HITS with the "house rule" to not TC anything but artillery. I play this series almost entirely for the experience of 19th century command, so I'm looking for exactly the sort of thing the the SOW series is known for. I have no objection to, and in fact quite like the idea that not all your subordinates will respond exactly the same and are not simply robotically executing orders.

SOWWL in my experience so far seems to take that to an extreme, well beyond what SOWGB does. I've played D'Erlon's attack at least a dozen times now, a situation that is very akin tactically to Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg in general outline. If one attempts to command only division commanders, the result in SOWWL is often the equivalent of Pickett deciding to go park in the Peach Orchard, Pettigrew moving to within 100 yards of the clump of trees and engaging in a firefight with the Union artillery, and Trimble moving to occupy Gettysburg.

Put another way: in SOWGB subordinates generally implement your tactical plan with their own interpretation and responses to local conditions. In SOWWL, at least at the Corps level, subordinates often seem to completely ignore your tactical plan and come up with their own - that's the part that isn't realistically reflective of how military organizations of this period work.

And yes, there are things that need fixing. NSD has acknowledged that and are working on the first patch. I and others are providing game saves for them of issues that they are having trouble replicating. There is a lot of discussion about the forums about modding the AI and formations. There is no doubt in my mind that NSD is and will continue to work to get SOWWL to the same point that SOWGB is - is just isn't there yet.

[dinsdale]

Is there anything to clean up?  Isn't that the whole point of the game system.  You depend on the subordinates and they don't always do what you ask.  SOW wants to put you in a somewhat real-life position of the commanders on the ground.  You have to plan around the people under you.  Its not miniatures where all men are at your beck and call.

I think thats a great concept, but does it work? I don't know if the issues on Matrix's site are being exaggerated or if their frequency is being exaggerated, but for the subordinate AI to be a true factor in the game, the instances of AI failure rather than AI subordinate iitiative has to be very low otherwise the immersion factor breaks.

For those that have the game, are the instances of the AI failing low enough that when the AI demonstrates subordinate command incompetence or subordinate command initiative, that it feels like part of the game? I love the way this happens in Command Ops, because it manages to execute orders well enough that when it fails it doesn't break the immersion factor.

For example, The British cavalry swept through D'Erlon's corps crushing the French attack and winning a significant victory. Instead of wheeling back to the ridge they continued charging to the French lines and were eventually slaughtered. During the period, the loss of a force's entire cavalry was a critical factor; and in 10 minutes Uxbridge almost cost the entire battle. There are instances of this type of mistake or subordinates not following orders and winning critical victories, across the period. It would be superb if this type of event happened, but if the AI is continually unable to execute a formation change, or marches across the battlefield in line, then it's less the friction of subordinates and more that the game would need more work.

Its really hard to tell from the Matrix site as there are people saying its perfect and people saying its rubbish.

[Rayfer]

But do the AI controlled units do the same thing? Do they blunder ahead in a charge when it was obvious they were to defend? Is this disobedience a two-way street or does it just hamper the player?

[RyanE]

My experience is its a little random+some personality trait of the commander.

[jomni]

My experience is its a little random+some personality trait of the commander.

Based on commander's ratings / personality traits.  So ideally, you should assign tasks based on their traits for best results.

[panzerde]

Here's some advice on using the TC commands that I found really helpful. Playing this way has significantly reduced my frustration with command and made it much easier for me to direct me units. It turns out that the issue is not just putting a unit in TC, but when to put a unit in TC.

Using this in a recent Division sized scenario I found that by TC'ing the brigade commanders at the right time, and turning off TC at the right time, I was able to put them where I wanted and then let them take over local tactical decision-making. I didn't have to engage in a flurry of micromanagement of battalions. About the only time I did TC battalions was when I wanted to pull them out of an engagement they wouldn't leave and get them to rejoin the remainder of the brigade.

Doing it this way, rather than getting badly shot up I was able to keep casualties roughly even, maneuver in a manner that was reasonably Napoleonic in nature, and take my designated objective in time to score sufficient VPs to win the game. I probably need to go back and approach some SOWGB scenarios this way...

[Asid]

Scourge of War Waterloo/SDK Pre Release

From Norb:

OK, this is just to help out until we can get a full installer with our tools. Many have asked for the files, so here they are. As well as the MyGUI tools that we built and the translated documentation. In the end we did a mix of using the tools and editing the xml directly. The skin editor was the toughest, as it messed up the files a lot, but the other tools were helpful. This is really a great product, as it worked very well once we understood what was going on.

There's not a lot of support for this. Jim is working on the docs, so it's use at your own risk. You should grab the SDK folder in the zip file and put that in your game directory. I think then the tools will work. They need access to their folders of resources.

SDK Pre Release: http://www.norbsoftdev.net/NSDTeam/Downloads/SOWWL-SDK-Pre-Release.zip

Original post: http://www.norbsoftdev.net/forum/waterloo-modifications/68669-sdk-pre-release

[jomni]

Recently played Army vs Army sandbox and to my horror, there are three Wellingtons (overall commander, army commander, corps commander). I guess he historically did those roles but playing this way is kinda strange... giving orders to my Army commander clone to manage my army for me.

[besilarius]

Wellington was an unusual commander.  Keegan describes his development and battle management in Mask of Command.  Basically he went to the endangered area and gave closer direction to his subordinates than other army commanders.  Napoleon relied on his corps leaders to handle their command.  Wellington could be viewed as a micro manager with some measure of judicious appreciation.
He was at the top of his game at Waterloo, while Napoleon was not.

[jomni]

Wellington was an unusual commander.  Keegan describes his development and battle management in Mask of Command.  Basically he went to the endangered area and gave closer direction to his subordinates than other army commanders.  Napoleon relied on his corps leaders to handle their command.  Wellington could be viewed as a micro manager with some measure of judicious appreciation.
He was at the top of his game at Waterloo, while Napoleon was not.

The devs replied.  They say it is a limitation in the system.  If I want to play historical, then I can ignore the Wellington Army and Corps commander clone and "take command" of all the Allied corps and Wellington's own divisions.  On the other hand, I can imagine some other general acting as Army and Corps commander if I don't want to micromanage like the real Wellington.

[sandman2575]

Looks like some ingenious soul has figured out a way to get 1:1 sprite to troop ratio working:

http://www.norbsoftdev.net/forum/waterloo-modifications/68724-11-sprite-ratio-revealedsandbox-friant-vs-cooke-sr1#68724


So what do you experienced SoW-ers think? Is Waterloo worth getting now, or do you advise waiting for a few patches before purchasing?  I'm still on the fence.