Technical Campaign Discussion (but not rules Q & As)

I am agog, I am aghast, is Digby breathing life into this at last?

Very excited to conclude the Campaign with my strategic brilliance. I am hearing rumors that some Austrian sausage needs chopped...

Most people should be returning from summer holidays now that September is upon us, so the Peninsular Campaign will resume.

The end of turn 17 (early February 1809) news has been issued. I will get individual reports and updated OOBs out to everyone in the next few days for turn 18 (late February).

We have some vacancies in the campaign. If anyone new to SoW via the new Waterloo game is interested please post here or send me a private message.

There are always commands available in the online MP games which we play to resolve battles that the map part of the campaign generates.

There are also map commands available and these usually involve the command of a corps (French) or an army (Anglo-Spanish). The map campaign is played via e-mail with all orders to your troops and letters to other generals (players) sent through me. You do not need to own or even be interested in the Scourge of war computer rules to play in the map/strategic side of the campaign.

There is scope on both the map and in battles for role-playing if you so wish.

All OOBs and late February situation reports have now gone out. As no doubt a few players are rusty or maybe still on holiday I will give three weeks until 23:59 UK time Thursday 24th September for this turn.

We have a couple of potential new players in the wings. They'll get their command briefings asap. There are still map commands available if anyone would like to join.

We play the battles the map moves generate in MP SoW Waterloo so if anyone wants to join us for a campaign game all are welcome. We tend to play in the evenings UK time over the weekends (Fri to Mon).

Also - if anyone was in the campaign earlier in the summer and now would prefer to drop out please let me know by e-mail asap, so I can reallocate your command. Thanks.

A player this turn has pointed out to me a mistake in the map. I never marked Soria as a town. Its a glaring error of mine as there is a Soria infantry regiment in the Spanish army!

I am going to issue a new map version to the Spanish players. The French team players can simply add this overlay section into their existing maps. It is the same scale as the one linked to in the rules section.

http://www.atomic-album.com/showPic.php/22426/Soria.jpg

We may have a battle this turn. I am awaiting a reply from a player on his chosen course of action. Given the still unstable nature of the KS Mod in Waterloo MP I am tempted to play the game using the KS Nap Mod for Gettysburg.

I want to canvas people's views before I commit - so can you post here to let me know if you are okay with this proposal or not?

The map is one of the Pipe Creek ones so players will need that add-on regardless.

Thanks all.

Given the problems created should a crash be experienced well into a campaign battle, I'd recommend going with the tried & true platform -- either that or an earlier, more stable version of the SoWWL mod. This is all quite the bitter pill to swallow given the otherwise clear superiority of the Waterloo engine for Napoleonics.

I agree with Ron, for the reasons he gives.

Martin (J)

We'd definitely need to get back into GB before fighting a campaign battle too, I believe....

however I wonder if it would not be wiser to accept the delay until we get this sorted out... I am just mentioning cavalry fights and squares here (I know Ron thought of these too) - but should we really continue knowing that these don't work in the old version?

We had a game with the mod and no crashes not too long ago with 3 players- we didn't follow up on that either - we immediately added new players - so we didn't rule out whether it was just luck or something else either...


I can just urge everyone to really start a rigorous schedule with a detailed plan on when, how and what has been tested - so that we can systematically rule out certain things and combinations ... we have started to work like this but then again went back to "we could try that- we could try this" - never with a clear line of starting at point A and slowly working our way to point B - step by step - game by game.

I am not happy about this either - but we need to track this down or we might as well go back to GB entirely - since I see no improvement on the horizon from the developer's side....



we can't even truly say that we don't crash with vanilla and all the players involved yesterday - since we only tried it once in this composition!


"Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves...."

Putting aside the issues raised about the WL mod - this isn't the place to discuss that so perhaps these concerns could be discussed elsewhere - I am mindful of:

1) The campaign has just restarted and a good number of players are very keen. A few however are very quiet and haven't responded to the latest turn yet. A battle sooner rather than later would help boost interest more which I think is a good thing.

2) I feel that cavalry combat in the GB mod is fairly good now. All campaign games are player v player of course so the AI processes are less of a worry. I would also request that given the explosion we had after the last campaign battle that - for good or for ill - squares be made immobile. It's not ideal but it is as Jack Aubrey would say, the lesser of two weevils.

3) We are all in the same boat with regard to being rusty with GB. Therefore no practice needed!

4) A good number of campaign players have not bought WL. Given the mess it is in some areas these people may never buy it. GB thus becomes our ONLY game with which to continue this particular campaign.

Im here! I am just figuring things out! I had to dig out my old maps. Lots of orders need to go out.


As for the new game, I have windows 7 and I cant get further than 45 minutes into a multiplayer game without crashing. I have finished two or three vanilla games.

I will turn off all my antivirus software and see if that effects anything.

The new game really sucks.

I'll play in the campaign games if they're Waterloo.

I have issues with the GB version.

What we need to do is sack Kevin and hire someone who can figure all this mod stuff out.  The problem is finding another schmuck smarter than Kevin who is also willing to work for free.

Waterloo is a no-go right now as it isn't stable enough in MP with couriers.

We have a few options:

1) Play WL but exclude players with Win8 and Win10 (not reasonable IMHO).

2) Do not use couriers (we tried this, it was stable but boring, no challenge or tension at all).

3) Use GB. If we make squares immobile I think that fixes the biggest source of problems we had in GB. Infantry still cannot charge them but they can be destroyed by firepower quite quickly which is generally what we do in WL anyway.

4) Quite a lot of potential players in the campaign don't have WL. We need every player we can get.

Mark - can you please let us know what your issues are with the GB mod? I can only think of squares that attack. This can be fixed. We had lag problems a few times but that applies to WL as well.

The squares and their amazing melee powers.

Every game I played someone had a battalion autocharge a square and get decimated.

As well, I never enjoyed the gaminess involved between cavalry and squares/non squares. The games seemed to revolve around cavalry commanders finding units too far from their commander and destroying them before the courier could get there ordering them into square.

I vowed a while back that I wasn't going to play the GB Nap mod anymore and I'm sticking to it.

I really like the new game. I think it has a much better Napoleonic feel than the GB game. And I've been dying to get into some real MP games, team v team.

But I'm just one person and don't even hold a map command, so it's no big deal.

I quite agree with Mark here...

I too hate the stress of having to form square for EVERY bataillon - and the stress to watch out for cavalry and the non-multi-squad based cavalry fights....


but like Mark said - I will simply stay away from the campaign battles - and the rest can fight them out...


one of the main reasons why I love the Reisswitz mod so much - as it isn't a real issue there!

Since these discussions we appear to have found the reason why the KS WL mod was crashing in MP and fixed it.

We can now use either Gettysburg or Waterloo for campaign battles and I think the only relevant factor is how many of us have bought Waterloo.

The battle that this turn has given us is at Calatayud where parts of the Spanish Armies of Murcia and Granada are attacking from the south-east towards the town held by part of French V Corps. A full size battle would require a minimum of 12 players. I doubt we can gather that many together who have Waterloo but we can try. We probably can get 12 who have Gettysburg. I can also design a slightly smaller battle that will assume that some forces are absent due to not arriving in time. That one will need at least 9 players.

I can get whichever scenario we decide on built for next weekend and therefore I have created a Doodle page which covers both which game players would prefer and which day.

Would everyone please list your preferences on the Doodle and I will go accordingly with the majority.

Doodle Link:

http://doodle.com/poll/sffynsbvw9bsr7mc

Many thanks.

I don't know why the Spanish are so upset, after all us French were simply looking for some of the famous "favors" from the local girls...

The late February turn is completed. I will get the updated OOBs and sitreps out to everyone in the next couple of days.

All situation reports and OOBs have been sent out to all commanders.

I will close this turn on Thursday 19th November at 23:59h GMT.

We have a battle at Somosierra already. It takes place early in the month and no other forces can reach the area to assist so an early announcement of it doesn't break anything. That may be the only engagement this turn, it depends if some other commands move back, forwards, or elsewhere!

For the rest of the early March turn there is a possible (even probable) second battle. I am awaiting a response from the Spanish commander who is involved. Elsewhere several forces are in contact and staring each other down but without a mutual commitment to do battle. Some of the concerned players are aware of this, one or two are not!

One problem I have is non-responsive (or not very responsive) players.

Our Wellesley player has gone quiet. I may need to replace him and now, with the recent momentous events around Madrid the British should become more significant in the campaign. If anyone would like to play Wellesley send me a PM or an e-mail. But please be someone committed to the game for a long haul and be able to give a lot of attention to a map command role. Some weeks/turns will be very quiet but others can get intense.

The British now though do need to up their game significantly. The surrender of Dupont near Madrid last September and the French retreat to the Ebro valley was the end of Act 1. I feel as though we may have reached the end of Act 2; Somosierra had a very fin de siècle sense to it! Act 3 is going to swing away from the Spanish taking the brunt of French attention and move over to the British dealing it out - or at least it needs to!

The map side of the campaign could use several more players in fact. I now have three French corps that are without commanders. Is anyone interested in taking up a command?

Kevin? Martin? Any GCM guys? Maybe Ron, Mark and Pat you could advertise for us over there?

The early march turn is complete. Newspaper report is up. I will issue updated OOBs and sitreps for everyone for the late march turn in a day or so.

Unfortunately we have lost a long-term Spanish player who has taken a time out to deal with real life issues. We urgently need a new Spanish map commander. It's a critical post. Anyone want the job?

Should I switch over to Spanish/British?

Through creating a fiefdom might be interesting.

I can help out until someone steps up and needs/wants a new commad

I'm looking for a new player. Moving people between roles doesn't solve anything.

If Player A is a corps commander and Player B is a division commander ... Can Player A change the actions of a Brigade or Battalion of Player B's via courier?

So you ride to the front to see how the corps is doing on the left and find that 2 Cavalry squadrons are moving on your left flank. The brigade and division commander are on the right flank. In reality the Corps commander might order the nearest unit to change front and take cover in yonder trees.

Is this dynamic replicated in SOWWL?

Yes, the corps commander can give orders to any of his troops via the courier order system.