My Review

[Moltke71]

Later than usual but the first site I sent it to is being slowed by the owners for some reason.

http://www.wargamer.com/reviews/review-wars-of-napoleon/

[Franciscus]

Hi Jim

Some imprecisions:
- Napoleon's Campaigns game was released back in 2008
- Map, graphics and UI are not the same of that old game. WoN uses the "later" type of UI, used also in CWII, TEAW, the map was fully redone, etc.
- Regional Decisions Cards exist in other games besides this one and TYW - AJE and all it's expansions have them

Regards

[Moltke71]

I agree on your first and third points. I had to do a fast re-format and didn't edit as I should have. It may be my old eyes but terrain and some counters looked the same to me.

[Franciscus]

Let me quote your interview with Phil Thib, at Wargamer [:D]:

"James: Wars of Napoleon came out about eight years after Napoleon’s Campaigns. The subject matter and graphics for both are the same. Were you thinking of Wars of Napoleon while you were doing Napoleon’s Campaigns?

AGEOD: No, the graphics are quite new in this title, the map and all units have been redone to match with our most recent style (as in Civil War II for instance) (...)"


Cheers

(PS: Keep up the good work, I always try to read your reviews and pieces, they're great [&o])

[philabos]

Thanks for the review. I really want to buy this game, but the comments over at Ageod have so far prevented me from taking the plunge.
I really don't expect perfection, and your review admits some issues, but overall seems positive. I kmow Ageod is trying to fix the problems.
At this stage, are you recommending a buy? I really want to do it, and would appreciate your opinion. I see we have yet another Napoleonic game just released, but my have a lot less detail than WON.
Thanks.

[warspite1]

I am in the same boat. I really would like this game too but there just seems too much wrong at present. Aurelian's AAR had Austria joining a coalition and declaring war on France.... when it was already at war, is just one example. At this stage in its development that is a pretty rubbish thing to be happening because it is so basic.

Makes you wonder what else is wrong and, on the back of MWIF, as much as I would like to get playing this game, I cannot be bothered going through the ball-ache.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I am in the same boat. I really would like this game too but there just seems too much wrong at present. Aurelian's AAR had Austria joining a coalition and declaring war on France.... when it was already at war, is just one example. At this stage in its development that is a pretty rubbish thing to be happening because it is so basic.

Makes you wonder what else is wrong and, on the back of MWIF, as much as I would like to get playing this game, I cannot be bothered going through the ball-ache.

To be fair though, that particular glitch didn't change anything. I don't recall if Austria had to be invited to the coalition and then required to declare war. I started the war ahead of the historical date.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I am in the same boat. I really would like this game too but there just seems too much wrong at present. Aurelian's AAR had Austria joining a coalition and declaring war on France.... when it was already at war, is just one example. At this stage in its development that is a pretty rubbish thing to be happening because it is so basic.

Makes you wonder what else is wrong and, on the back of MWIF, as much as I would like to get playing this game, I cannot be bothered going through the ball-ache.

To be fair though, that particular glitch didn't change anything. I don't recall if Austria had to be invited to the coalition and then required to declare war. I started the war ahead of the historical date.

warspite1

That is good to hear - but still troubling to see as it makes you wonder if there is a knock-on effect there or elsewhere. At best its sloppy.

[Moltke71]

ORIGINAL: warrenup

Thanks for the review. I really want to buy this game, but the comments over at Ageod have so far prevented me from taking the plunge.
I really don't expect perfection, and your review admits some issues, but overall seems positive. I kmow Ageod is trying to fix the problems.
At this stage, are you recommending a buy? I really want to do it, and would appreciate your opinion. I see we have yet another Napoleonic game just released, but my have a lot less detail than WON.
Thanks.

Wait for the patch...always wait for the patch' a luxury reviewers often don't have.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I am in the same boat. I really would like this game too but there just seems too much wrong at present. Aurelian's AAR had Austria joining a coalition and declaring war on France.... when it was already at war, is just one example. At this stage in its development that is a pretty rubbish thing to be happening because it is so basic.

Makes you wonder what else is wrong and, on the back of MWIF, as much as I would like to get playing this game, I cannot be bothered going through the ball-ache.

To be fair though, that particular glitch didn't change anything. I don't recall if Austria had to be invited to the coalition and then required to declare war. I started the war ahead of the historical date.

warspite1

That is good to hear - but still troubling to see as it makes you wonder if there is a knock-on effect there or elsewhere. At best its sloppy.

But the losing VPs for not declaring war on a nation you're already at war with bug got squished.

What would happen is that you would get a casus belli against a nation you're already fighting. Now if you ignore the CB, you lost victory points. But as you were already at war with that nation, you couldn't declare again. So.....