I jumped right into the 1701 War of Spanish Succession scenario as the Bourbons playing with the 2nd highest activation level (leaders sometimes won't be able to move if they fail an activation check) and historical attrition (player only) options.
So far, my impressions have been good. It certainly more polished upon release than both English Civil War and Thirty Years War. Also, unlike TYW, it's so far been very stable with no CTDs. One can even check unit stats in the recruitment menu without provoking a crash unlike some other Ageod games (again TYW). However, its biggest advantage is that it's NOT Wars of Napoleon- Ageod's sadly over-ambitious title that just didn't work.
WoS has a "back to basics" or, more aptly, "what works" feel about it. It uses Ageod's classic one-side vs. one-side gameplay. Diplomatic events are handled entirely by script or in the decisions' menus. Also, regional development is minimal. The game's focus is heavily on army management and fighting similar to older Ageod titles like Wars in America and Rise of Prussia. Even army management is also relatively simplified with no corps, divisions or even ECW's or TYW's "groups." While one can combine understrength units, one can't appoint subunit commanders within stacks. It's quite similar to how army management functioned in WIA.
As others have noted, the map and unit cards are beautifully done. It really is a great looking game.
The AI? Its Ageod's typical AI: semi-competent but prone to creating both monster stacks that it immolates through its poor handling of the attrition and supply rules and penny-packet armies that it spreads all over the map.
Economy? As the Bourbons in the 1701 scenario, it appears to be a bit out-of-whack. So far, I've never once had to worry about either conscripts or war supplies. I've ignored any decisions that increases them. Instead, it's been all about money. It's the ONLY resource that seems to matter. The only decisions I use are ones that increase cash flow. Shouldn't there be a better balance between the three factors? Also, shouldn't EPs have more value than just one-time big expenditures for decisions in the political and military tabs? Further, why don't you need EPs for almost any of the regional decisions like in other Ageod games?
Overall, my first impressions are positive and it does look WoS is shaping-up to be one of Ageod's better releases in recent years. However, sadly its niche subject matters and the Ageod engine being a bit long in the tooth hasn't attracted much interest. These forums have seen very little activity since release. It doesn't bode well for either DLC or even long-term support.
EDIT: WoS retains Ageod's clumsy and convoluted saved game feature. I've never understood why it uses that bizarre system for what should be any PC game's most basic features. It almost straitjackets you into playing Ironman- I can't save the game, try-out a strategy or test a game feature, and then go back to my old save if I make a mistake. Further, I can't find my saves. They're not being saved to the WoS's saved game folder (and I've check numerous other folders where my other Ageod games sometimes store their saves), and my file locater can't even find the .ord files. I had this happen before with TYW where the game is creating saved game files, but they are no where to be found. Weird.