First Impressions?!?!

[Tim1966]

ORIGINAL: Templer

Something that isn't really important, but I have to mention it, during march the soldiers have a waddling gait.

I prefer to think of them swinging along rather than waddling...

[Nemo84]

Still on the fence personally, but the game looks great. I tried the Gettysburg demo in the past, and it didn't click for me. I don't really care that much for the ACW, so that might have been the issue, but it does mean the current price and lack of demo is making me hesitant. Any chance to put the manual up for download? And is a demo being planned? Might help to convince doubters like me.

One minor error I've noticed though: the town is supposed to be called Louvain, not Lourain.

EDIT: Saw another town name typo in a screenshot: Aasche should probably be Assche, or just Asse. Also is there any particular reason why every town name is using its French name except for Brussels (Bruxelles), Antwerp (Anvers), Ghent (Gand) and Oudenaarde (Audenarde) which use the English spelling?

[BloodyBill76]

Napoleonic combat was about maneuver morale and shock. In some ways SOW Waterloo feels like a civil war battle with Napoleonic uniforms. Columns were the main maneuver formation. The British according to reports loved to fire a close volley and then break the enemy with a charge that more often broke the enemy before contact than actually going in to melee. Fire fights and heavy skirmish usually took place in areas of broken terrain, place that fast moving columns couldn't be used effectively. Column was used a lot as it was a fast formation that gave a morale boost. SOW Waterloo I do not notice a speed difference between column and line formations. Maneuver by line was slow cumbersome and took good officers to make work correctly.

By 1809 it is reported that artillery was so effective that it caused up to 70% of all battlefield losses. One example would be at Friedland in which a mobile battery of 30 French guns tore a 4,000 man swath out of the Russian center in less than forty minutes.

Napoleonic combat was not long drawn out fire fights in open terrain, it was maneuver deliver a volley and go in for the kill.

[jardail]

Overall I have enjoyed the game so far. Best game that I've seen in awhile bug wise, right out of the gate. That being said. Don't like the context menu or the lack of some of the choices, that don't show up until AFTER you're in a fight (i.e. wheel left or right). That, in my opinion, should be a part of the setup of the right clicked context menu, not of the right click to move procedure.

Want some of our commands back that worked so very well in SOWG, but those are coming is what I've heard so far. Some other nitpicking stuff. Tell a commander to go to such and such location (can't use the map on it dangitall), and they go 30 or 40 yards and return right back to where they started off from. I'm sure tho that that one is something I've done wrong, not the games fault.

Still, overall, as I said, I've enjoyed it.

[e_barkmann]

(i.e. wheel left or right)

Use , and . keyboard shortcuts to wheel your unit at any time.

[jardail]

ORIGINAL: Chris Merchant

(i.e. wheel left or right)

Use , and . keyboard shortcuts to wheel your unit at any time.

danke

[Tony1961]

ORIGINAL: roy64

I hope so, but I'm really missing the right click to drag the map around, at the moment I have to spend most of my attention making sure I'm right clicking the toolbar & not the map.

Yes! That is taking some getting used to.

[Redmarkus5]

ORIGINAL: BloodyBill76

Napoleonic combat was about maneuver morale and shock. In some ways SOW Waterloo feels like a civil war battle with Napoleonic uniforms. Columns were the main maneuver formation. The British according to reports loved to fire a close volley and then break the enemy with a charge that more often broke the enemy before contact than actually going in to melee. Fire fights and heavy skirmish usually took place in areas of broken terrain, place that fast moving columns couldn't be used effectively. Column was used a lot as it was a fast formation that gave a morale boost. SOW Waterloo I do not notice a speed difference between column and line formations. Maneuver by line was slow cumbersome and took good officers to make work correctly.

By 1809 it is reported that artillery was so effective that it caused up to 70% of all battlefield losses. One example would be at Friedland in which a mobile battery of 30 French guns tore a 4,000 man swath out of the Russian center in less than forty minutes.

Napoleonic combat was not long drawn out fire fights in open terrain, it was maneuver deliver a volley and go in for the kill.

One of the best posts I've read on this forum. Bill clearly knows his history and his tactics. I hope the devs are reading these comments carefully.

[pjsynnott]

ORIGINAL: BloodyBill76

Napoleonic combat was about maneuver morale and shock. In some ways SOW Waterloo feels like a civil war battle with Napoleonic uniforms. Columns were the main maneuver formation.

Spot on, although that does depend on the army and year, of course. The Austrians, Prussians and Russians until 1805, 1806, and 1807 manoeuvred and fought in line, and the greater flexibility and speed of the French manoeuvre-column-and-fight-in-line approach caused them a lot of trouble. The British were happy enough in line all the way through the period because the French tatics never caused them the same trouble they seemed to cause everyone else. Although at Salamanca, Wellington's orders to Pakenham included the words, "...throw your division into column...", so that formation seems to have had its uses for them too.

The British according to reports loved to fire a close volley and then break the enemy with a charge that more often broke the enemy before contact than actually going in to melee.

That was the British specialty, alright. Brent Nosworthy has a fascinating chapter in "The Battle Tactics of Napoleon and his Enemies" on the psychology behind the success of this British tactics - and it wasn't just about the British musketry. I'd recommend this book to anyone with a serious interest in the period and also Rory Muir's "Tactics and the Experience of Battle in the Age of Napoleon", although Muir's work is less of an academic treatment and is more Anglo-centric, it's still well worth a read.

Fire fights and heavy skirmish usually took place in areas of broken terrain, place that fast moving columns couldn't be used effectively.

I think skirmishing was used on all sorts of ground, although if there was rough ground to be held, the skirmishers were certainly the men for the job. Prolonged (and ineffective) firefights could also happen anywhere. Napoleonic soldiers liked to stop and fire...and keep firing, the mechanics of loading and firing a musket being almost therapeutic amid the horror and terror all around. Stopping troops from firing once they'd starting was a big problem, and was one of the reasons for the one-or-two-volleys-and-charge approach of the British. There are accounts of units blasting away at each other without neither side achieving much, due to smoke and inherently poor aim. There are also accounts of attacks made with unloaded muskets, specifically to avoid the attack becoming bogged down as a result of this tendency.

Column was used a lot as it was a fast formation that gave a morale boost. SOW Waterloo I do not notice a speed difference between column and line formations. Maneuver by line was slow cumbersome and took good officers to make work correctly.

I was going to post on this myself. I carried out a test, by lining up two brigades, one in line, one in column of divisions and had both advance 100 yards. They both did it in 1 minute 6 seconds. This makes me wonder if the difference between the two formations in game terms is anything other than a question of musket-counting and a different visual. If that's the case, then it's a big disappointment and a serious shortcoming.

By 1809 it is reported that artillery was so effective that it caused up to 70% of all battlefield losses.

I guess this was the result of Napoleon's opponents' adopting (to a greater or lesser degree) French methods, e.g. the corps system (even though Charles bottled it and went back to the old ways at Aspern-Essling - or was it Wagram?), increased use of column for manoeuvre, and increased use of skirmishers. With those traditional advantages reduced, more reliance was placed on the long-range killer.

Napoleonic combat was not long drawn out fire fights in open terrain, it was maneuver deliver a volley and go in for the kill.

I think that was the idea, but not always the execution (except for the British), and it didn't always work for them either, Albuera provides one example of a particularly bloody firefight.

[ulsterandy]

At this moment in time I am not happy with the game. I would love to hand it back and get my money back. 1st off I had to go and get rid of the black squares by downing my windows to 7 from 8.1, you would have thought that they would have the game to run in windows 8 at lest what is going to happen when windows 10 is out soon. there is no patch out for this yet and at 1st I thought my card was messed up. it was only when I found this web site that I saw the patch. 2nd it is hard to see what is going on in the game hard to zoom in and out but that could be getting used to the controls but compared to over games this is a pain. I do play a lot of 28mm Nap's war gaming anyway I will give this a trial.

[vincere]

1st Scourge of War game bought and I'm very happy with it. Bit rough round the edges that needs balancing like AI wheeling lines in fire fights.

But absolutely having a blast and will spend many fun hours with this.

[thewood1]

You are not "downing" your windows from 8.1 to 7. You are telling windows to use win7 libraries and calls for win7 in one game. It is actually very common for games to require this...it is just usually done by the developers automatically so you never know it. I would bet almost all wargames developed since win8 came out use the compatibility mode.

Frankly if that is your main grief with the game, you probably should go back to miniatures. They are so much more realistic, after all.

[Gunfreak]

ORIGINAL: BloodyBill76

Napoleonic combat was about maneuver morale and shock. In some ways SOW Waterloo feels like a civil war battle with Napoleonic uniforms. Columns were the main maneuver formation. The British according to reports loved to fire a close volley and then break the enemy with a charge that more often broke the enemy before contact than actually going in to melee. Fire fights and heavy skirmish usually took place in areas of broken terrain, place that fast moving columns couldn't be used effectively. Column was used a lot as it was a fast formation that gave a morale boost. SOW Waterloo I do not notice a speed difference between column and line formations. Maneuver by line was slow cumbersome and took good officers to make work correctly.

By 1809 it is reported that artillery was so effective that it caused up to 70% of all battlefield losses. One example would be at Friedland in which a mobile battery of 30 French guns tore a 4,000 man swath out of the Russian center in less than forty minutes.

Napoleonic combat was not long drawn out fire fights in open terrain, it was maneuver deliver a volley and go in for the kill.

Not quite right.

Column by division was a manouver formation, and I'm glad you did not go the "column smashing into lines thing" but column by division was rarely used by it self, normaly a mix of of formations were used, in the middle a battalion or more in line, ready to give fire support with battalions on the flank in columns of division(ready to deploy in various fighting formations depending on the circumstances)

While it did happen, it was rare for whole brigades to be in column of division.

And yes the theory was a quick attack, but that rested on the moral of the attacker and defender, a quick attack would only work if tgtthe defenders moral was low ( normaly artillery should soften them up)

But most first attacks failed, as its hard to dislodge well placed infantry.

This is were most of the time firefights broke out, and yes they were the norm even if theory said otherwise.

This is why you had reserves, if your first attack boges down in a firefight. You then try and flank with your reserves, actually getting battalions out of a firefight was hard. Often easier to wait untill they pull back by natural urges, put them in reserves, attack with fresh battalions and hopefully this time, the defenders will retreat, if not, rinse and repeat. A good brigade or divisional commande would hopefully bring up some arty by this point, if one or two attacks failed, then mabye close range canister followed by a third attack will do the trick.

Now add the fact that both sides often had reserves and more reserves and you startmto understand why battles were so bloody.

Number of arty killes varied wildly at some battles like friedland or even worse borodino, arty would cause 70-80% of casualties, at borodino sevral russian divisions had lost almost 50% of their men before they fired a shot (reserves placed to close to french heavy artillery )

another example is battle of mockern, part of leipzig, even tho much of the battle took place in the town of mockern with close range firefights, arty still killed well over 50%

While other battles (most extreme cases beeing in spain) arty casualties never got past 20% (im guessing based on number of guns beeing so low)

But i agree with you that so far arty in sow wl is not lethal enough. My 180 gun french battery so far has 30 kills, after an hour into the battle, even after the allies have come over the ridge and are open targets for my arty.

[pjsynnott]

My own first impressions...

The Battlefield

The map looks great. Hougoumont looks right, so does La Haye Sainte, and even the church in Plancenoit is in the right place. I've walked the real battlefield and the SoW version feels right, but no Lion Mound, thankfully! The only thing I wonder about is the contouring of the ridge to the west of the La Haye Sainte crossroads. I get the impression that the elevations might be current, instead of what they were before the earth for that awful carbuncle was excavated. That's more of an observatin than a criticism, though. (To be fair to the mound, it may stick in your eye, but it does give a great view.)


Deployments

First think I did on running the game was to take a tour of the French positions, followed by the Allied. Units and formations are in the right places. It's nice to see the Nassauers get some credit for their part in the defence of Hougoumont. I was surprised not to see the Duke of Cumberland's hussars, but I guess they were folded into that Hanoverian light cavalry brigade near Mont St Jean farm, which is more or less where they would have been anyway. Or maybe they just left extra-early this time...


Uniforms

I like the uniforms. I've read some complaints about the colours, but they look fine to me. It would have been nice to see the Guard's Elite Gendarmes, but I guess they're so similar to the Guard Horse Grenadiers that it would make more sense to fold them into that unit. Many miniatures orders of battle would do the same, and I would have no complaints. There are a couple of minor omissions like a cuirassier-less cuirassier regiment, and a "blue" squadron of Guard Lancers, but these are just quibbles. I read somewhere that the Empress' Dragoons uniform and the line dragoons graphic is the same, but if a trooper from each regiment was 50 feet away from me, I'm not sure if I could tell them apart anyway.

A really nice touch with the uniforms, though, is the French line infantry. A mixture of covered and cover-less shakos, greatcoats and tunics, red cuffs/collars/facings/epaulettes/piping and plain. It looks good, and it fits with historical accounts of the wide variety in French uniforms. I believe the Guard infantry, particularly the 3rd and 4th regiments displayed similar variation in uniforms, but again, no big deal if that isn't represented in the game.


Unit formations

I've posted separately on this aspect, but I'd just like to say a particular well done for including the four-rank line used by Wellington's infantry, and also the new approach to deploying skirmishers, this is really first-class. both in terms of how the player can determine the percentage or number of men to be told off to skirmish, and how those skirmishers are presented, i.e. in pairs, with close-order supports a little way back. I also checked to see what would happen to the skirmishers when the parent battalion went into square and, sure enough, they were automatically recalled. Bravo!


The Interface

The interface works well, containing a wealth of information, but not overburdening the display with it. I'm still getting the hang of when-to-AI and when-not-to-AI. I'd rather not need to, but I'm OK with micromanaging as a workaround, especially now that I know how to quickly get everyone in an organisation back under AI control without having to click each one individually.


Sound

I find the sounds to be very immersive, the boom of artillery, pounding of hooves, rattle of musketry, etc, combine to at least give an impression of that maelstrom of noise reported by survivors of the battle. I was particularly impressed by this during the cavalry charges scenario.


AI

I won't comment on the AI yet because I'm still getting the hang of it.


Scenarios

The scenarios you'd expect to see are there, covering the various phases of the battle. I would prefer to see the 6th Corps v Prussians scenario start a little earlier, but that can be taken care of with the scenario editor when it's available. Likewise for scenarios where Wellington gets to use the troops left at Hal, or where some of Grouchy's forces turn up to assist in the fight against the Prussians. Full marks to the developers for allowing any scenario to be played without needing to play a preceding one first.


Nice-to-haves

The option to move but retain an existing formation, for those occasions where the player has tweaked a brigades formation into something non-standard. I guess modded formations might well mean that this isn't necessary, though.

A zoom-able map would also be handy.

This is one from the miniatures world, but...with everyone from battery commanders to the army commander represented by two mounted figures, it's hard to find who's who without a lot of clicking and checking. Napoleon and Wellington look a bit lonely with only one man trotting along behind them. How about indicating the rank by adding some more staff, e.g. battery or brigade commander: 2 as it is now, division commander: 3, corps/wing commander: 4, army commander: 5...or something similar.


Summary

This might sound melodramatic, but I've been waiting many, many years for a game like this. I thought it had arrived from another source a few years ago, but...well that's another story. For me, this game does for Napoleonics what the Combat Mission series did for WW2, it gives me a virtual 3D tabletop on which to play out battles from a birds-eye or worms-eye view, or anywhere in between (up until now, the nearest I got to that was a scaled down Waterloo map I created for Combat Mission).

I'm not normally a big one for thanking developers in forums. I tend let my money say thank you for me and give focused feedback on various aspects. However, having clicked (accidentally!) on the "credits" button, and read the brief account of the effort and stress that went in to getting this game out on time, I can only say a big THANK YOU and WELL DONE to everyone involved.

[Templer_12]

ORIGINAL: psynnott
I was going to post on this myself. I carried out a test, by lining up two brigades, one in line, one in column of divisions and had both advance 100 yards. They both did it in 1 minute 6 seconds. This makes me wonder if the difference between the two formations in game terms is anything other than a question of musket-counting and a different visual. If that's the case, then it's a big disappointment and a serious shortcoming.

I'm still waiting on an opinion of the developers for this.
I feel that as an important issue.
I agree, If that's the case, then it's a big disappointment and a serious shortcoming!

[CaptCarnage]

I have the same experience - when the brigades are moving without changing formation they move at a similar speed. I have no idea though whether this is historically correct.

I also carried out another test -
Set up 2 batallions in Column of Divisions and then sent them roughly at the same time to a point at the same distance - one to arrive in Line and the other to arrive in Column.

As you can see the Column was definitely quicker. (had to reduce the screenshot a bit because of file size, but you can see the column already at its ordered position on the right).

In terms of time, I think the column arrived after about 35 seconds and the line arrived at 1 min 15 sec and during the movement it is still forming up.

[Pawsy]

The advantage of the column is that it can thread its way through a 'busy' battlefield quicker than a line.

All - Im not surprised that over a open field that the two units walk at the same pace.

Try using a line or column when you need to conduct a passage of lines around or through other units and the column will show its why for moveing its the superiour formation. I also used it in the attack very succesfully

[CaptCarnage]

Yes because also the Formations in the first movement test are already set from the start. I don't really see why - in an unobstructed field (without enemy fire as well) - such formations cannot move at the same pace.

In my test above the Column wins in speed as it seems to be formed quicker. The Line formation is still forming up on the go whilst being slower, indicating that this formation is more difficult to achieve.

So far it seems pretty good modelling to me.

[gazfun]

ORIGINAL: Chris Merchant

(i.e. wheel left or right)

Use , and . keyboard shortcuts to wheel your unit at any time.

Hi Chris
We are a Aussie origins and world wide group, I know I would like to make contact with Lan player in Asutralia preferably
call in some day

[e_barkmann]

gday Gazfun yep we have a lot of fun with online SOW games.

You can get more info on our new board http://aussow.freeforums.org/welcome-to ... rd-t3.html

cheers