The Best Battlefield Simulator Ever Made

[tpr]

Well the best battlefield simulator beside Combat Mission of course  but if you like huge battles, awesome AI, the US Civil War, or the Napoleonic Era check this out:

You´ll find a small review in the comment section.

Enjoy!

 

 

 

Edited November 30, 2018 by Captain Reyes

[Erwin]

This seems very similar to Mad Minute Games ACW titles from over a decade ago - but with better higher def graphics.  Very enjoyable for a while.  But, battles all seem the same after a while.  Wonder if it's the same developers.

Edited November 30, 2018 by Erwin

[StieliAlpha]

Yep, the Scourge of War ACW series is pretty good.

I played 2nd Bull Run for a while. The detail of orders submission us great. When you issues an order, you can actually see the messenger riding off to the receiver. Whether the messenger arrived or the receiver follows the order, is a very different question.

Another good thing: You can choose your place in huge battles, by selecting what rank you play. I liked it up Division Commander. In the higher ranks, it became too confusing for me.

Initiative can be pretty frustrating, too. I remember one game, where I barely managed to stop a Confederate attack and re-arrange my lines. Just then, one of my Regiment Commanders decided it’s time to be a hero and stormed forward. The rest turned into a Desaster.

I have the complete Napoleonic series, too. Bought for little money in a Matrix game sale. But I never really came into it. There, sophisticated Napoleonic tactics seem to be too much for the AI. I have seen some battles, where my battalions ended up standing perpendicular to each other, like a cross. Or a battalion would form line perpendicular to a wall.

[JoMac]

Actually, If BF ever made Tactical ACW Games, then this is almost exactly what it would look and feel like (CM-Gettysburg, CM Shiloh, etc)...Moving around Battalions/Regiments in a Brigade, and Brigades in a Division,  etc with RT or 5-15 minute turn options.

Edited December 1, 2018 by JoMc67

[StieliAlpha]

1 hour ago, JoMc67 said:

Actually, If BF ever made Tactical ACW Games, then this is almost exactly what it would look and feel like (CM-Gettysburg, CM Shiloh, etc)...Moving around Battalions/Regiments in a Brigade, and Brigades in a Division,  etc with RT or 5-15 minute turn options.

What SoW does is a little different.

You do not actually „move units around“. You give them orders to do something.

You can give orders to subordinate units, but it is far from certain, that they will be carried out. I found that great, but quite frustrating, too.

The game simulates the complete chain of command. However, the player can only give orders to his subordinate units. Say, as Brigade General, you could give orders to your regiments, but would receive orders from the (AI) Division Commander or even Corps or Army Commander. As Army Commander, it works obviously the other way round. But you would probably only give orders to the Corps Commanders, perhaps to a Division every then and when. It‘s a RT game, so if you play a high level Commander and start to micro-manage, you‘ll be lost in a minute.

 

[Erwin]

5 hours ago, StieliAlpha said:

you‘ll be lost in a minute

Hence the original developer being called "Mad Minute Games"...   It is the same developer... 

http://www.madminutegames.com/

[Michael Emrys]

Er...Erwin, much as I appreciate what you are trying to do, that's a commercial link to a competitor (sort of). I'd hate to see you get busted for it.

Michael

[tpr]

Here is a video of the Napoleonic edition of Scourge of War. I am still a new player and in this specific case I had to consider an earlier retreat as I noticed fast that wavering units fight ineffective and routed units may be lost for the complete battle. But still commanding worked like a charm and although I am far from being good at this game the Gettysburg and Waterloo videos should give you an idea in how to aproach this game.

In my opinion Scourge of War comes with one of the most sophisticated AI´s I have seen in real time strategy BUT it mandatory requires the player to understand how it works under the hood, how to play, and to forget his modus operandi he may aquired by playing other games like Total War.

Also I´ve noticed that stock toolbar, especially in Waterloo, may be too simplistic ending up in making the game even harder to grasp. But with utilizing Grog´s Toolbar (which you can see in this video in action) I feel having very accurate command. A version of this is already included in the Collector´s and the most recent can be aquired in the forums. But nevertheless it requires still to understand how orders and AI work. Especially some orders like "charge" are handled very unique in SOW.

In this video I am a brigade commander which doesn´t involve much troops and I can easily take the command of every element and dictate how the defense line should look like so I deactivate the AI for all elements.

HOWEVER when being a division, corps or even army commander in Scourge of War this is probably the worst you can do and you are recommended to entrust your subordinate AI commanders to make your vision happen like a real commander would do and don´t interfere too much with your subordinates personal preferences when it comes to how they will aproach your order. Perhaps the game´s AI had issues on release I do not know as I got the GB 150th Anniversary and the Waterloo Collerctors on a cheap sale which come with the latest patches but still I see many players neglecting manual and tutorial advices and then struggle as they try to hand out individual orders to single regiment without proper detachment or TC settings, trying to get 20 dudes to charge an sole artillery cannon in a 50.000 men battle while completely messing up their AI subordinates tactics. This game shouldn´t be aproached like C&C or Total War with you being the overlord over every unit. I found out that as a Division, Corps, or Army Commander by staying focused on the "big picture" giving your units simple move, attack, probe, or defend orders works the best and the AI does a great job. I alsmost consider it as a technological achievement what these guys did here.

Don´t spam them with orders, don´t strip them of elements, don´t try to micromanage every thing going on. Even though you won´t agree with everyting happening there you still will be surprised how good your AI officers handle the situations (and how some bad commanders may not). This game also simulates to somewhat degree the huge challenge to synchronize the movements and orders of thousands of troops which if you read some accounts on this battles is almost impossible to perfect.

I also recommend playing with courier settings on Brigade as early as possible as this will teach you better consideration when trying to make things happen by giving efficient and less orders. Some even play in full realism by limiting FOV to your commander, solely relying on reports, maps, or riding around to check how the battle is going. I didn´t try this settings as it sounds hard for a new player like me but also sounds exciting to share the shock of real commanders when they realized situations way too late like their flank being vanished.

I will definitely keep making videos for it alongside Combat Mission Shock Force 2 so stay tuned for more. Already got 20gb mods for it and worried that with CMSF2 and this my real life responsibilites may are in great danger.

Edited December 2, 2018 by Captain Reyes

[Erwin]

16 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:

Er...Erwin, much as I appreciate what you are trying to do, that's a commercial link to a competitor (sort of). I'd hate to see you get busted for it.

Michael

I appreciate that Michael - but didn't think one could in any way consider ACW or Napoleonics competition for CM series.  

The problem with the otherwise good Mad Minute games of this genre is that after playing a few battles and getting used to the system, every battle feels the same.  It took me a few weeks to get bored with it.

Edited December 2, 2018 by Erwin

[sburke]

50 minutes ago, Erwin said:

I appreciate that Michael - but didn't think one could in any way consider ACW or Napoleonics competition for CM series.  

The problem with the otherwise good Mad Minute games of this genre is that after playing a few battles and getting used to the system, every battle feels the same.  It took me a few weeks to get bored with it.

The rule is not competitors but commercial links period.  Just tell Steve it was a charity contribution for a game that apparently sucks for playing more than a couple weeks.  I'll be honest.  I got bored while watching the video.  I just can't seem to get myself wrapped into Napoleonic or Civil war games despite an interest in the period historically.  The games just haven't gotten me yet.

[Erwin]

Agreed.  Have found that earlier eras like Napoleonics and ACW are more fun at the strategic level.  Am a huge fan of the original ROME: TOTAL WAR game.  That was primarily strategic but it was great fun to play out a tactical battle if one chose to vs let the AI make the determination.  

[StieliAlpha]

13 hours ago, sburke said:

I just can't seem to get myself wrapped into Napoleonic or Civil war games despite an interest in the period historically.  The games just haven't gotten me yet.

Sounds like you never pestered your opponent with swarms of skirmishers in front of his line, launched a devastating cavallery charge or  engineered a full scale combined arms attack in a “La Battaille” game. Though they are not computer games, I admit.

ACW is indeed more difficult, due to fewer tactical options.

[DerKommissar]

As a fan of the Napoleonic era (I find the American Civil War interesting as well), I have to say there's very little games about it. Especially tactics games. It's a shame, because I think Napoleonic tactics could be developed into a genre to rival WW2 tactics games.

I got these guys on sale, I'll have to play them sometime.

I will say this, though: I think the Battle of Waterloo is hyped up. I swear it seams 90% of media about the Napoleonic era is about Waterloo. Really, I find Napoleon's earlier career (Italy, Egypt) to be very interesting, and much like in WW2 -- the eastern front was the real decisive campaign (including the biggest campaign in human history, up to that point). Not even talking about all the Naval clashes and colonial skirmishes that pretty much made it a world war. Napoleon Total War was pretty good at covering most theatres, but it had my usual problem with TW games: small maps and armies.

War of 1812, I swear I've never seen a tactics game about it.

[danfrodo]

I just finished a 34 hour audio book about Napoleon and his battles, quite good.  I agree completely, Waterloo was not indicative of the genius of Napoleon as he broke many of his own maxims in the battle and was uncharacteristically sluggish in some ways.  Previously he had typically moved more decisively and rapidly.  Even then, if the corps he sent off the east to screen the prussians would've done it's job properly, Wellington would've lost.  I want to try Scourge of War for sure, but still have sooooo much Combat Mission I haven't done yet.  And I haven't even started on Black Sea. 

 

[DerKommissar]

40 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

I just finished a 34 hour audio book about Napoleon and his battles, quite good.  I agree completely, Waterloo was not indicative of the genius of Napoleon as he broke many of his own maxims in the battle and was uncharacteristically sluggish in some ways.  Previously he had typically moved more decisively and rapidly.  Even then, if the corps he sent off the east to screen the prussians would've done it's job properly, Wellington would've lost.  I want to try Scourge of War for sure, but still have sooooo much Combat Mission I haven't done yet.  And I haven't even started on Black Sea.

Black Sea will blow you away, there's nothing like it.

Well, the story was that Napoleon was badly ill before and during the battle. IDK how true that is, and am curious if the audiobook mentioned it.

What if Napoleon won Waterloo? What would it have changed? Maybe, he could have played Emperor for a few months longer. Instead of a Hundred Days it would be Two Hundred Days. Only a matter of time before the Nth coalition would come in and exile Eugene for good.

[danfrodo]

Book mentioned that he may have been ill, and was at least exhausted.  He was overweight by this point.  The stomach cancer that would later kill him may have already started for all we know.  Many members of his family died of this same stomach cancer (author debunks all the poison theories pretty well).

I am wondering same thing about what if he had won.  he had already promised to be constitutional monarch, but Britain was never going to stop trying to bring him down. 

Black Sea looks amazing, but I am sure it'll take me some time to get used to the modern level of lethality. 

[sburke]

May w@nt to start first with CMSF2 it is a nice balancing point in between the WW2 titles and cmbs. 

What i I was really interested in was Wellington’s peninsula campaign. Not least because it might give me an excuse to eat my way through Spain 

[Michael Emrys]

9 hours ago, danfrodo said:

...(author debunks all the poison theories pretty well).

How recently was the book written? Some few years back there was a story reporting that some samples of Napoleon's hair had been analyzed and showed traces of arsenic, thus confirming the poison theory. (shrug)

Michael

Edited December 4, 2018 by Michael Emrys

[danfrodo]

Hi Michael, The book is from 2014.  And from a reputable scholar (Andrew Roberts) who did lots of research into surviving letters etc.  On the arsenic claim, he points out that Boney had an arsenic level of '10' or some such.  But hair from other notables from the time typically shows that level or higher.  So the arsenic theory seems based on lying by omission, where the fact is damning -- until compared to all the other facts.  An autopsy performed (albeit by Brits) showed a nearly destroyed stomach and the author points out that many members of Boney's family died of the same cause at a similar point in life.  So there's little need for conspiracy when there's a much simpler reason for his death.  I am still wondering why they wouldn't have poisoned him given how much blood and treasure was spent trying to remove him in the first place. 

Reminds me of the theory someone had that Napoleon lost in Russia because he had the wrong kind of horseshoes, not suited for winter.  Except that by the time winter came nearly all his horses were already dead.

[DerKommissar]

19 hours ago, danfrodo said:

Book mentioned that he may have been ill, and was at least exhausted.  He was overweight by this point.  The stomach cancer that would later kill him may have already started for all we know.  Many members of his family died of this same stomach cancer (author debunks all the poison theories pretty well).

I am wondering same thing about what if he had won.  he had already promised to be constitutional monarch, but Britain was never going to stop trying to bring him down. 

Black Sea looks amazing, but I am sure it'll take me some time to get used to the modern level of lethality. 

Yeah, I remember hearing the arsenic theory. The stomach cancer story makes more sense -- not entirely sure why I never heard of it. 

If he had won, he would have Britain, Prussia, Austria, Russia and everbody's mum crashing down on them. His main advantage during Waterloo was surprise -- fool me twice situation.

4 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

Reminds me of the theory someone had that Napoleon lost in Russia because he had the wrong kind of horseshoes, not suited for winter.  Except that by the time winter came nearly all his horses were already dead.

Barclay de Tolly did an amazing job at delaying the Grand Army -- probably why Napoleon lost. Shame that history has largely forgotten him.

18 hours ago, sburke said:

What i I was really interested in was Wellington’s peninsula campaign. Not least because it might give me an excuse to eat my way through Spain 

Aye, that was quite a campaign. After all, the term Guerrilla originated from it.

[Michael Emrys]

Spain was a tar baby for Napoleon, and Russia a much bigger one. He would have done well to stay out of both of them. But I suppose that is hindsight...

Michael

[StieliAlpha]

3 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:

Spain was a tar baby for Napoleon, and Russia a much bigger one. He would have done well to stay out of both of them. But I suppose that is hindsight...

Michael

One might say, that „Spain“ was an early evidence, that Nappi was not the „stable genious“  (Sorry, wrong period: „genious“ only) he was taken for.

He gave the country to his less able brother, trusting that his Generals would sort out things. However, never gave them full support and hoped, that somehow the „issue” of Brits advancing from Portugal plus belligerent Spanish (aka “Guerilla”), would dissolve. Not a sign of a strategic genious.

[DerKommissar]

1 hour ago, StieliAlpha said:

One might say, that „Spain“ was an early evidence, that Nappi was not the „stable genious“  (Sorry, wrong period: „genious“ only) he was taken for.

His campaign in Egypt was a disaster, and was a clear indication of what kind of man Nappi was. He executed thousands of PoWs, and when the situation got hairy -- he left to France and abandoned his army to their doom. Luckily they managed to hammer out an agreement with Britain and managed to be repatriated after the siege. I am guessing the British thought they'd seen the last of him.

Nappi was a neurotic ego-maniacal sadist, I think these days he gets too often romanticized.

[BumbClackDat]

Waterloo is very good but not for people with short attention brain. Also so many battles and mods (but too little time especially when my cmsf2 arrives )