Why so littile discussion? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Scourge of War: Waterloo



Message

Grim.Reaper -> Why so littile discussion? (6/18/2016 11:41:41 AM)

Just curious why there has been so little discussion on this game, both here/steam and at the developer's forum. The release of the new expansion was also pretty quiet without much fanfare. I do own the core game, but haven't played it much, not sure why since it is a game I should love...but even so I was looking around to see if I should buy the expansion anyway, but with so little active conversations or interest, not sure. Any thoughts as to why so quiet? Is there something wrong with the game? Did it not live up to expectations? Just a small audience who even plays the game?

It just seems like there should be more excitement with this series then there tends to be.....



e_barkmann -> RE: Why so littile discussion? (6/18/2016 12:21:56 PM)

well, excitement posts are fine, but this is a deep game; and I suspect patch changes will be subtle and require repeat playings to arrive at a useful 'feedback' position. I would think we are not going to hear from players seriously for a good couple of weeks. It will probably take me a lot longer to comment on anything changed since last year.

I applaud the team for listening to player feedback and to continue developing and improving their baby :)

cheers



Grim.Reaper -> RE: Why so littile discussion? (6/18/2016 12:30:00 PM)

I can understand that for the expansion, but the core game itself has very little discussions as well. Just seems like this series in general did not turn out to be popular for some reason....but who knows.



Majick -> RE: Why so littile discussion? (6/18/2016 1:06:08 PM)

I agree with Chris, this one is a bit of a slow burner. Although I was excited by the prospect of Waterloo I didn't play it as much as it deserved until Quatre Bras was announced.

Now I'm enjoying it immensely and Quatre Bras is a very welcome addition. As far as Qautre Bras is concerned I'm still struggling to get better than a draw on the first scenario, so it's certainly challenging me [:)] I haven't noticed any subtle new AI nuances yet and might need to play a game with the update notes next to me to check them out.


I'm looking forward to seeing where the series goes from here and it's great to see Ligny has been added to the menu in readiness as well. It will be nice to see if other great Napoleonic battles get added once Norbsoft are finished with the hundred days :)



Grim.Reaper -> RE: Why so littile discussion? (6/18/2016 2:57:27 PM)

Its good to hear that folks are enjoying it, I always liked the Civil War series and thought with these battles the interest of others would grow even more. I guess that was the reason for my question....I completely understand minimal comments exist on the expansion because of recent release, but overall the game itself does not seem to have a lot of discussions which just surprises me. I'll likely buy the expansion at some point since I own everything else from the developer, just a matter of time.



mkeogh76 -> RE: Why so littile discussion? (6/18/2016 3:26:08 PM)

It's a bit concerning how dead both this forum and the Norbsoft ones are. The Steam forum is a little more active, but not much. Sadly, I don't think it's a good sign for the long-term vitality of this series.

I do suspect that Waterloo was a bit of a bust. It's still a relatively young game, but its forums are ghost towns and have been for months. In comparison to SOW: Gettysburg and its add-ons, it has very few mods or scenarios. Yes, there is the KS mod, but that has a very niche appeal. Why the perceived lack of popularity? Lack of interest by American PC gamers in the Napoleonic Wars? The game's graphical engine being a bit long in the tooth to attract new fans?

Upon its initial release, I was a bit disappointed in Waterloo. It felt unpolished in comparison to Gettysburg and its add-ons. I hated the new UI which made my preferred play-mode of HITs very difficult. (Only RebBugler's Grog Toolbar mod kept me playing.) Its manual is inferior to the Civil War ones. [Last night, I was playing a QB scenario and had to consult the SOW: Chancellorsville manual in order to determine what certain cavalry orders actually did because the Waterloo manual doesn't contain that info.) Plus, Waterloo was missing features that were in the older games: the end of battle AAR and a quick glance OOB screen (which is very important for the HITS player because you get so little feedback from your subordinates). Both of those have now been included through patches, but not to the quality of the older games which is disappointing. Further, some other features are still missing such as the "move to this map location" in the courier menu which was another very helpful HITS feature in the Civil War titles.

Still, I love these games. So, if they keep making them then I'll keep buying them. The sheer scope of its battles can seriously "Wow" one. Plus, I just love how HITS mode simulates 19th century warfare in ways that other tactical games just don't replicate. HITS transforms these games from good ones into brilliant ones. I just wish Waterloo was a bit more favorable to HITS players.

Waterloo has significantly improved since its initial release. It feels much more polished. Yet, issues still remain: the replay feature still has its block armies decked-out in blue and gray. And, last night, I was playing the sandbox full Waterloo scenario and received an "order" from the Emperor that stated: "TacQuad4" or something similarly unintelligible.



roy64 -> RE: Why so littile discussion? (6/18/2016 4:04:21 PM)

The fact you have to wait 6 months for a patch is a massive disappointment & has probably stopped a lot of people buying this game. What really attracted me to the game was the campaign. Unfortunately one year on & the campaign is still a complete failure & appears to have been abandoned with this latest update. With Qautre Bras coming out before the core game is fixed is a slap in the face to us the customers.

Maybe we will have to wait another 6 months or a year until we get a fix for Qautre Bras & the campaign. [&:]



mkeogh76 -> RE: Why so littile discussion? (6/18/2016 4:20:18 PM)

Personally, I didn't expect much from the new campaign system even prior to buying Waterloo. Reading about it pre-purchase indicated it to be a sort of a glorified quick-battle generator and not any sort of an attempt to recreate the 1815 campaign.

As a history geek, who almost never plays quick battles, I knew that sort of campaign would not appeal. So, I didn't even notice that the new patch barely addressed it, but I can understand the frustration of those who had hoped for some major improvements.






roy64 -> RE: Why so littile discussion? (6/18/2016 4:42:27 PM)

Any kind of improvement to the campaign would have been nice, the last time I tried the campaign I couldn't even get a battle with the AI.[:(] [:D]



Grim.Reaper -> RE: Why so littile discussion? (6/18/2016 4:42:42 PM)

I actually thought Waterloo would add interest since the Civil War battles is a topic frequently covered, at least it appears so...personally, that is what attracted me the most. Well, hopefully with the new expansion it will renew people's interest or get them back actively discussing it at least.



Redmarkus5 -> RE: Why so littile discussion? (6/30/2016 7:41:08 AM)

+1 I just found myself marching all over the map without ever finding anyone to fight, except for one engagement that seemed to involve my cavalry and a single enemy artillery battery (which was limbered by the way!). So that didn't last long...



szmike -> RE: Why so littile discussion? (7/4/2016 8:40:14 AM)

UI is terrible, I managed to get my unit out of sight in first tutorial and couldn't find it anymore playing with HITS on. I love the idea, but hate the implementation. I think this 3d battlefield to order units is killing the UI, with poor graphics and limited camera I can't precisely tell a unit where to go. From realism point of view commander would tell them to go to that line of trees or hedges or take that farm building... but I can't point it properly in 3d view, my unit was running back and forth because of imprecise clicks. Whole commanding should be done from map position, and player should only watch effects on battlefield.

My 2 cents.



mkeogh76 -> RE: Why so littile discussion? (7/4/2016 3:37:23 PM)

I agree that the new UI was step-back from Gettysburg's. (It appears it was an attempt to make the game more accessible to fans of Total War and similar RTS tactical games. I suspect it failed to bring in any sizeable new audience and ticked-off long-time SOW fans. The worst of both worlds. Reb Bugler's Grog Tool bar mod was a lifesaver for me. If I had to use the vanilla command bar then I probably would shelved Waterloo.)

However, playing SOW: Waterloo with HITS can still be a lot of fun. One thing is not to rely too much on the command bar to control your troops. The courier menu is where you want to give-out most of your orders especially if playing above brigade command. Lost sight of a unit? Then send it a courier to detach and march to either your location or that of a unit in sight. [Use the OOB screens to learn its status. If it's already engaged then you may not want to send it a move order.] I use lot of "move to the flank\rear\front of" orders to get my troops into more precise positions. You can also use the command map to give orders. It's not as precise as the "move to this map location" courier order found in the Civil War games, but does provide a way to command from the map. [I use the "blank map" option for added challenge, but if you feel that things are bit too chaotic then use a more detailed map option such as show all "Units in Sight."

HITS really is about letting your subordinates do the work. Micromanaging your troops with HITS is a recipe for disaster. Once your forces are engaged then there isn't much you can do. Let your brigade and/or division commanders fight it out. A lot of times when playing a HITS I feel like Stephen Lang's "General Pickett" in "Gettysburg"- watching a raging battle unfold with little to do but will my troops to victory: "Come on. Do it!"

It's the lack of control that creates the fun of HITS. You've given your orders and now it's time for the troops to fight. The proper management of reserves is often the key the victory. I've won and lost battles based solely on how I used or misused my reserve. HITS also levels the playing field with the AI because you too have to rely upon sometimes bumbling AI commanders. I truly believe that HITS transforms the SOW games from good/decent games into brilliant ones especially for those wargamers really interested in 19th warfare with its primitive command and control systems. Also, the size and scope of the battles can be spectacular even with its relatively modest graphics.

HITS, though, isn't for everyone. In fact, I suspect its appeal is rather limited. The lack of control and limited information can for a lot of people be more frustrating than fun which is probably why SOW: Waterloo isn't as friendly to HITS players as the older Civil War titles. Still, I wouldn't play these games any other way.



szmike -> RE: Why so littile discussion? (7/4/2016 4:20:59 PM)

I don't mind not having control, I like it and I wish there was more games with indirect control. But when I have to fight UI to even send the order I mean to send, it's bad sign for a game.



Zap -> RE: Why so littile discussion? (7/4/2016 6:02:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Grim.Reaper

Its good to hear that folks are enjoying it, I always liked the Civil War series and thought with these battles the interest of others would grow even more. I guess that was the reason for my question....I completely understand minimal comments exist on the expansion because of recent release, but overall the game itself does not seem to have a lot of discussions which just surprises me. I'll likely buy the expansion at some point since I own everything else from the developer, just a matter of time.


Can you speak to Gettysburg? I bought their other and played that. What did you like about Gettysburg'



aaatoysandmore -> RE: Why so littile discussion? (7/5/2016 9:20:13 AM)

You should have been here when the game first came out and all the screaming and gnawing and gnashing of teeth over the way the units maneuvered. It had quite an audience then. Plus being such a niche genre everyone doesn't post everywhere. You'd probably find more conversation over at Norb's site. I know I do.



conjotter -> RE: Why so littile discussion? (7/10/2016 3:13:39 PM)

I hope the designers will persevere and continue fine-tuning the Waterloo game system.
The first game is disappointing to me for its emphasis on attacking fortified positions and the lack of "what if" options that give you a chance to handle the battles differently.
In Gettysburg there are many wonderful mods that allow the player to do just that.
However, I am not a modder. I am hoping the designers will eventually come up with a simple scenario editor that doesn't involve changing computer files.
Quatre Bras is fun (wish there were more scenarios) and I'm looking forward to Ligny.
I own every game Norb and his team have published and will continue supporting his work.



Rosseau -> RE: Why so littile discussion? (7/10/2016 8:03:38 PM)

Quatre Bras is a little pricey, but the devs have to eat. Norbsoft and others have given us some nice mods for Gettysburg, so I feel compelled to buy it for that reason. Especially, now that I have survived the Steam sales.



aaatoysandmore -> RE: Why so littile discussion? (7/10/2016 8:42:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John Cotter

I hope the designers will persevere and continue fine-tuning the Waterloo game system.
The first game is disappointing to me for its emphasis on attacking fortified positions and the lack of "what if" options that give you a chance to handle the battles differently.
In Gettysburg there are many wonderful mods that allow the player to do just that.
However, I am not a modder. I am hoping the designers will eventually come up with a simple scenario editor that doesn't involve changing computer files.
Quatre Bras is fun (wish there were more scenarios) and I'm looking forward to Ligny.
I own every game Norb and his team have published and will continue supporting his work.


Me too, Norb makes the greatest wargames of all so far. I like being able to pick the command level I want to play and still feel like part of the army getting orders from above, even if it is the AI giving the orders.[:D]

Only thing is I much preferred the older graphics of the Mad Minute battles. They just seemed more polished and detailed. I feel like now I'm just moving cartoons around.



Jace11 -> RE: Why so littile discussion? (7/11/2016 4:40:45 PM)

In the Gettysburg titles you used to get several large maps and a series of battles leading up to "the big battle" of that expansion. e.g Antietam (same price as QB) 4 large maps and 26 scenarios...???

I felt Waterloo should have followed this model and had these extra battles (Quatre Bras, Ligny and Wavre) by default and any further expansions should have been other major battles from the Napoleonic period. Its clear from the QB expansion that Ligny and Wavre are next. While interesting in the context of the buildup to Waterloo, as DLCs they don't present much value and offer significantly less content than the expansions for Gettysburg.

QB seems wildly overpriced to me for 1 map and a handful of scenarios. I'm a fan of the Waterloo game and prefer its setting and gameplay over the Gettysburg versions, but I doubt I'll buy any of the expansions for it. In fact I'll probably end up waiting for the next major battle (leipzig, salamanca, borodino, austerlitz????) but at this rate, that could be 2 years away.



conjotter -> RE: Why so littile discussion? (7/23/2016 5:23:40 AM)

I am quite enjoying Quatre Bras, and it is well worth the modest cost.

Try playing the Allied army scenario. It is a real nail-biter.

Think I'm finally going to try mutli-player!






Mr Digby -> RE: Why so littile discussion? (7/29/2016 9:16:58 AM)

If anyone would like to try HITS in MP using couriers you are welcome to drop by the KS group; there are links in the KS Mod discussion on here. We are probably the only regular Waterloo MP group running at the moment and we play most days at 20:00 BST, 15:00 EST, 21:00 CET.

Our mod has also been an attempt to improve the interface, taking the toolbar back to a Gettysburg style one as best we can.



Ostwindflak -> RE: Why so littile discussion? (7/29/2016 4:41:13 PM)

I just registered on your site as I am interested in this.



Mr Digby -> RE: Why so littile discussion? (7/29/2016 6:46:15 PM)

Thank you very much, look forward to meeting you. We are playing today at the time given above, you're welcome to join us if you have a mic and Teamspeak. It could be a PvP game or co-op vs the AI and don't be concerned about suffering heavy losses, many of us frequently get our asses handed to us in HITS due to the extreme FOW.



roy64 -> RE: Why so littile discussion? (7/30/2016 7:22:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr Digby

If anyone would like to try HITS in MP using couriers you are welcome to drop by the KS group; there are links in the KS Mod discussion on here. We are probably the only regular Waterloo MP group running at the moment and we play most days at 20:00 BST, 15:00 EST, 21:00 CET.

Our mod has also been an attempt to improve the interface, taking the toolbar back to a Gettysburg style one as best we can.


Your mod looks very impressive apart from the toolbar, I just can't use it. It's a shame rebs toolbar is not compatible with it.



Mr Digby -> RE: Why so littile discussion? (7/31/2016 4:04:43 PM)

What is the problem with the toolbar exactly? It is a very simple one and is based on the Gettysburg style. It does everything the Grog toolbar does, but with fewer buttons, although we do not have a 'take command of all' type command as we try to encourage players not to TC units if possible; you can still take command if you wish, you just need to go to each unit or commander to do so.

The mod comes with every major European nation that fought in the wars and some minor ones as well as 60+ maps. The gameplay is much improved with better AI logic routines, effective artillery and skirmishers and so on. I can't really see a reason not to play it.



roy64 -> RE: Why so littile discussion? (7/31/2016 6:40:03 PM)

There's no OOB arrow buttons which I use the most, the way the OOB arrow buttons work changing the menu instead of having to click on tabs is far more superior. The worst part for me is it's transparent, I find it's a real struggle to see anything on the toolbar. [8D]

I've played the mod for about 20 hours & struggled with the controls of the toolbar to much to enjoy the game so I gave up on the mod which is a shame.



Mr Digby -> RE: Why so littile discussion? (7/31/2016 6:52:27 PM)

You can use the arrow buttons on your keyboard to navigate the OOB, it's a fast alternative to mouse-click on buttons.

The tabs have gone on the v122 version. None of us liked them, they were only a stand-by solution while we wrestled with getting MyGUI to do what we wanted. Its been streamlined down and now the formation and action options change automatically depending on the level of commander you select or whether its an infantry, cavalry or artillery combat unit.

While the background is transparent, the buttons are clear enough. Some of us found the dull wood-coloured areas distracting - even a bit claustrophobic - so we removed it. We could most probably reinstate the solid background as a separate version if people really prefer it. Come over to the KS forum and let us know what you want. As long as the functioning interface isn't changed things like backgrounds are easy to modify.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4