User Reviews (1 - 11 of 24)

Show these reviews first:

Highest Rated
Lowest Rated Newest
Oldest Most Helpful
Least Helpful

waterloo

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 0 / 16
Date: June 14, 2001
Author: Amazon User

I have poblam when I play waterloo the game will stop and show me about debug and visual c ++ documentation on asserts

My first bad review...

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 0 / 1
Date: March 13, 2007
Author: Amazon User

I was in love with gettysburg and antietam, and waterloo came out and eagerly baought it.

The game is very good but there are several problems with it that are so big, I have to badly rate the game.

The first is cavalry iss WAY too powerful. i know at the time cavalry was powerful but a group 80 cavalrymen making a brigade go into square automaticly over and over again whilst you click line is no way accurate. its just annoying.

When you have infantry in line and 80 cavalry men make you 2000 man brigade go into square and then while you away tending to another part of the battle and you return to see enemy infantry has torn apart your infantry stuk in square, its very annoying.

The second is, sometimes infantry just dosnt fire. Your regiment just stands there, aiming the gun at the enemy but not firing or reloading while the enemy is firing at you. So, if you send a regiment behind to enemy to flank them, it wont fire and you lose. Wether this is a bug or not I dont know, it certainly wasnt in gettysburg.

There is a sequal and maybe that is different but for some reason, its not being published. but, those two above reasons are reason enough for me to not play this game again and to give it 2 stars, as it could be a great game without those 2 fundamental flaws.

Waterloo:Graphics worst battle

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 1 / 11
Date: March 18, 2002
Author: Amazon User

I was very disappointed about this game. The graphic were the worst I have ever seen. I have all of the Sid Meiers games and love them all. That is why I don't understand how these graphics ended up so bad. Having to try that hard to make out what a unit is on screen is just terrible!

Big disapointment

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 1 / 6
Date: February 27, 2002
Author: Amazon User

This game was a huge disapointment. I expected this game to be like Sid Myer's Gettysburg, which,by the way is an excelent game, but it wasn't. The graphics were horrible and the animation was very choppy. I liked the game for 1 hour then I wanted my money back. Take my advice, DON'T BUY THIS GAME !

Table wargamers take heed!

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 3 / 9
Date: January 21, 2002
Author: Amazon User

This game is not for you!

The play is extremely clunky and the unit graphics are horribly done. It would seem the designers have placed too much emphasis on cavalry as they are way overpowered and the artillery appears to be shooting BBs and may as well not even be on the battlefield. The objective points are never clear as to where the true ground is, so you may hold a solid line for hours but lose the points because your men just weren't on the right pixel.

The AI often jumbles into a solid block of mess with which the inferior graphics engine really tortures, so that you never know what the hell is yards in front of you. Even more fascinating is that the AI somehow fires volleys from this massive mess into your well formed line shattering them for some reason. You suffer incohesion but the AI can just munge corps together and even fire through them.

All in all a very disappointing game not even near some of the better quality games of Strategy First. I think I will skip the next one in this awful series - Austerlitz, and SF needs to give Breakaway Games a break away.

Bore terloo!

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 7 / 27
Date: September 03, 2002
Author: Amazon User

What a waste of money! If you are thinking of getting this game then wait until the price drops to about a quarter or what it is because that's all it's worth!
The good points are: There is a flashy title page with a nice little tune. There is a really nice historical account of the battle (although the writer does need to learn a little more grammar!)
Well, that's it. There are the good points! Now for the bad points...
The training scenarios are incredibly irritating. Every move you make it stopped by the "trainer" while a banner appears with information about how to move units etc. and the game automatically pauses which you have to undo manually each and every time. What a pain! In addition, at the end of each instruction you read you are told that to exit the game press the escape key. I wish it told me what to do to get my hard-earned money back!!
When you have mastered the training with lots of swearing at the computer and the notion that you have paid 40 bucks for the game so why not see it through, you get onto the battle action. What a joke! There are, I am told, 60 different uniforms in the programme. Pity we can't actually see them!
I tried to dowload screenshots from a site on the net but each time I couldn't get to see them for some technical reason. Hardly surprising having seen the game! "Is this IT?", I though when I first saw it. Terrible!
Gameplay is no fun either. I give commands only to@see that the unit hsn't moved, and if you want to move several units, sometimes you cannot find the brigade commander the units belong to.
Do I even need to mention the jumpy scrolling?
Maybe a real aficionado of the old table wargames who has never seen a computer game before might get excited over this, but for the rest of you I would recommend you to stay well clear of this.

...?where's the graphics!?

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 5 / 16
Date: April 20, 2001
Author: Amazon User

Frankly, I don't know you, so what do I care if you waste yourmoney on this B-class game. I'm just writing this because I wasmislead (and therefore am upset) by the PRICE of this ... game. It is often the case that you get what you pay for. So if you buy a game for $15.00, you shouldn't expect a masterpiece, however, this game advertises with a ... price tag and somewhat good reviews which is usually enough to expect good game-play and well defined graphics. Well, think again. The price tag on this game should read ... (at the most). I mean think about it, how on earth can this game sell for ... when for ten $$ more you can get a spectacular game like "Age of Empires?" But, if you really insist on wasting your money, like I said, what do I care?

Worst Sid Meier game EVER!

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 8 / 18
Date: June 17, 2001
Author: Amazon User

When I bought this game, I expected it to be basically Gettysburg, but with more pomp of the Napoleonic era. Unfortunately, it took the bad parts of Gettysburg, and blended it into new bad parts. First, the enemy calvary is next to invincible. I just finished playing a game, and was stunned to see one British calvary unit going down my line, crushing all my units. By the time the calvary unit was done, I had a total of one unit left! The game seems to think I'm able to put my whole army in square formation ALL the time, yet still attack. There is ALWAYS calvary attacking me, and I can't always have my men in squares. Second, they took this from Gettysburg: Why do enemy units that are broken run through my lines, into the rear, and regroup? They ALWAYS do this. In Gettysburg, when even easy scenarios lasted a decent amount of time (unlike Waterloo), I found myself taking units out of the line and chasing these rogue units away from my Victory Points. Third, why are there Victory Points? Couldn't the computer just figure at the end of the battle which side has the best position and things like that? Why must I keep units from the line to guard these precious areas from roaming calvary (tanks, for the most part) and rogue units? Fourth, and final:Attacking at all seems futile. Even when I do all I can, like reserve a unit or two to continue firing on the enemy while I get other units in attack column and charge, most attacks fail miserably. I'm not sure if this problem is just due to a crappy game or if attacking back then was really so futile. In Gettysburg, I could attack, and attack often, and I liked that. I could trust my Yanks or Johnny Rebs to take the enemy position, but these French, Brits, and Prussians I don't trust one little bit. I'll stick to Gettysburg and Antietam.

Good potential. Try again.

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 11 / 18
Date: March 31, 2001
Author: Amazon User

I was really excited about this game. Unfortunately it does not live up to expectations. The graphics are not up to standards achieved on some other strategy simulations (the Cossacks preview, for example). Movement, at least on my PC,(which is able to handle B17 2 with no problems)is not smooth. Also, the game menu, graphics and music are not of the quality, for instance of Sudden Strike or Age of Empires. its been a few years since the fine Gettysburg game. One would have expected improvements in this genre reflecting advances made since then. If you are into 16th to 19th century European strategy, I suggest Age of Sail 2 or wait for Cossacks.

The Best And Most Authentic Napoleonic Game Ever!!!

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 11 / 16
Date: May 21, 2001
Author: Amazon User

If you Love Real Time Strategy games and Love the Napoleonic period, Buy This Game! The Graphics aren't the best But, the gameplay, the variety of units, the many senerios, the Sounds, and the History make this game Great!... Buy WATERLOO!

Review Page: 1 2 3 Next 

Actions