I give up (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Civil War II



Message

pitman -> I give up (4/8/2014 11:29:08 PM)

Well, I did all the tutorials and then three different times tried to play this game (and I have been computer gaming since 1984). This game has the worst interface of any computer wargame I've played since the 1980s. Nothing is user friendly, everything is clunky, and simple things like organizing a military force becomes so irritating and cumbersome that I basically have lost all interest in this game. I found I was fighting the interface more than the Confederates and that's a sign that the game is a disaster. Back to Civ, I guess.



USSLockwood -> RE: I give up (4/10/2014 12:27:11 PM)

It's a pretty steep curve, I'll admit. But I find myself returning to the game, time and again.
There's just something about the strategic depth of the game that I find very rewarding, despite
the opacity of the interface.



Ostwindflak -> RE: I give up (4/10/2014 1:21:16 PM)

I didn't find the interface that bad. My biggest hurdle was organizing Corps & Armies. I learned that through playing Napoleon's Campaigns which has a great tutorial for it. (I bought Napoleon's Campaigns after Civil War II). Once the light bulb came on for that, I dove back into Civil War II and started having a lot more fun. I can understand if you are frustrated, but give it a little more time and don't be afraid to ask questions on the forum. There are a lot of people with hundreds of hours into this game who will help you.



Werewolf13 -> RE: I give up (4/10/2014 6:26:17 PM)

I wanted to like CW2 - really - I did.

But it just isn't fun to play. In fact I find CW2 to be down right BORING! And I don't know why because CW History is one of my hobbies and I've been playing wargames on computers since 1979!

Beautiful graphics, the interface is functional. Maybe the scope of the game is too large - then again small scenario with few turns or the full blown war - still boring.

Sad - really wanted to like this one.



USSLockwood -> RE: I give up (4/11/2014 1:11:47 PM)

I've been thinking about the OP since I first replied, especially about the difficulties with
the interface. I was surprised to realize that, what I termed the 'opacity of the interface,
is actually historically accurate. The player takes the part either of President Lincoln or
Davis and consider the problems each had with command and control. Playing with the options
for FOW and randomized leadership values, you truly experience the problems that faced the
respective leaders.
So, in other words, the interface problem is actually a feature!



jimmyPx -> RE: I give up (4/11/2014 3:39:07 PM)

I have to agree with the OP.

I love Civil War games and own most of them that have come out over the years. I also really enjoy Gary Grigsby's games like War in the East that have a high learning curve and a lot of micromanagement.
But I must agree with the OP that the interface on this game is horrible--especially unit management !! After going through the tutorial and reading the manual if I can't figure it out then it has "issues". I don't mean that to sound arrogant, but I have been gaming since board games and Commodore 64 war games in the 80s and work professionally in IT. If I'm having problems with the UI then I'm sure many others are as well. Another poster admitted that he had to play a Napolean game by the same developer to figure it out !! Doesn't this indicate that the UI is needlessly complex ??

I'm sure that many love this game and that's great, but for me it was an exercise in frustration and I will never buy another game from this developer if it is still using this terrible GUI.

I'm not trying to be overly critical but the early Paradox/Hearts of Iron games had the same issue--awesome game but hamstrung by a bad UI. In later versions they fixed this and made the UI much better and now I love them, especially Crusader Kings.



loki100 -> RE: I give up (4/11/2014 6:54:28 PM)

I think there are two issues actually. One is a question of whether or not the UI, especially for unit building is clunky, the other is whether or not the process of building units is both complex and shifts as the game progresses.

My personal view is it is the latter. Other AGE games have the concept of building the base formation, in Rise of Prussia this is relatively simple - build a brigade of 4 units, cluster those brigades in an corps, assign the corps to an army. In Revolution Under Siege, you have the same debate in this game as to how to build a division where you assign regimental, brigade and support units to that level - or leave them loose (not recommended). Then build your divisions into corps assign to army.

The problem with ACW is not only do you have the relatively complex RuS system but it changes over time. So at the start a division is a pretty loose concept and you have no corps. Later on you have the system of assigning your base units to division (and the debate about different designs and how to reconcile that to the way that units appear), assign divisions to corps, assign corps to army.

So to me, ACW2 has the most complex system that AGE use, due to both designing your own divisions and that the system changes. But it is also appropriate to the game, the armies in 1861 were pretty much operating at the brigade-senior commander level and by 1862 progressed to a fairly organised structure that mirrored practice in the larger, regular European armies.



keeler -> RE: I give up (4/11/2014 11:59:47 PM)

There are some interface issues, especially regarding unit recruitment. It can be hard to organize forces, and many of us who play this game a lot seem to wind up using some sort of pen and paper solution. Personally, I use an Open Office spreadsheet. Understandably that's not everyone's style, but it works.

Some of the terminology and tooltips are unclear at times (or bugged) and the manual needs an overhaul. This was done, at least partially, over on the CW2 wiki.

It's interesting to hear other points of view, because I actually find the interface pretty easy to use. But after several years of AGEOD titles I am pretty familiar with it, and know where the information I am looking for can be found.

If you're frustrated at the moment, I offer two suggestions. First, if you have specific suggestions about what can be better, offer them. The AGEOD development team is among the most responsive that I know of- just today the lead developer asked for opinions about CW2 over at the AGEOD forums.

Secondly, take a break from the game but don't give up on it. The first game had 16 patches (or was it 17) patches. This one is only Patch #3. There's a hotfix out and among its changes is reopening the recruitment window to your previous selection (if you had been looking at ships in the Old Northwest, that's where you'll reopen). It's a small change, but it removes one of the more irritating things about unit recruitment. And the modding files have yet to be released.

The interface is unlikely to change dramatically, but if you check back in a couple months you might find a different experience.



wodin -> RE: I give up (4/13/2014 12:48:26 AM)

I'm surprised really after so many games by AGEOD using the same design they haven't nailed the UI to be more or less perfect.



jack54 -> RE: I give up (4/13/2014 2:15:38 AM)

CWII continues the evolution of the AGE System. There are a lot of options 'nesting' in an attempt to de-clutter the Map. This could make it difficult to find some things even for an Ageod vet; new players may well be lost.

IMHO I think the interface if fine but I've been playing AGE games for years and it's probably my single favorite system.

I hope most of the players who are not enjoying the game stick with it, I think all the AGEOD games are worth the effort.

All that being said not every game is for every gamer.




jwarrenw13 -> RE: I give up (4/13/2014 2:55:36 PM)

I think it is almost necessary for someone to play one of the earlier AGEOD games to feel comfortable with CWII. Perhaps that shouldn't be necessary, but CWII, as jack54 points out, is an evolution in their AGE system. If you are familiar with one or more of the earlier games, the learning curve is not nearly as steep. Wars in America is a great place to start. Even the Alea Jacta Est/Birth of Rome games are much easier to grasp. I also think the AGE system is an acquired taste. I tried it and left it twice before coming back. I read that from other people, too. I kept seeing something special in the games but they never quite clicked, until they did.

Of course I should add that not every game is for everyone. There are some really popular games offered by Matrix that I don't care for at all. So I understand people just not liking the game or the system. It certainly is different.



cgoddard -> RE: I give up (4/24/2014 9:21:03 PM)

Agree - on my second attempt and seems so hard to get a grip on what is or is not happening.

Seems impossible to move units for Amphib movements by sea or river or, to get any sort of movement of large bodies of troops as the US.

CSA seems able to move armies around at will.



gabeeg -> RE: I give up (4/25/2014 11:20:28 AM)

I took me two or three times of starting and then putting back down Wars In America, It took me two times trying to get into CW...but it was with CW that it finally clicked. Now CWII...I like it...but I don't love it, I play it but play others more. I too have to vote the UI as the biggest road block of my personal enjoyment still. Even after coming to grips with it I feel that it brings you out of the meat of the "game" (if that makes sense) too much to make it that last step to my "love it" category.



etsadler -> RE: I give up (4/27/2014 3:51:15 PM)

Could the OP, or others that have the same frustrations, offer some examples? There could be a quick answer available.

Or to ask another way, what do you want to do that you can't? I ask that because if what you want to do is build a division as a single unit, well, you can't. But I wouldn't consider that a UI issue, I would say that would be because units were raised as brigades and smaller units in the real CW and then put together as divisions. So I would call that a game design/real life issue, not a UI issue.

To echo others, certainly you don't have to like how the game works, its an individual thing.



mrfeizhu -> RE: I give up (5/2/2014 11:23:54 AM)

I am thinking about getting the game, in theory i like AGEOD games, but I cant seem to get past the interface. The maps, the concept of the games are so good but playing the game is not enjoyable. I like games with a big scope and you can play form a long time like war in the east and Witp and With ae.



Lecivius -> RE: I give up (5/2/2014 2:33:07 PM)

I look at this and I am surprised. I am by no means a rocket scientist, but I had no problems grasping this game.

Am I missing something?



aaatoysandmore -> RE: I give up (5/4/2014 12:19:18 PM)

Command Ops are much better games and easy to get into.



Moltke71 -> RE: I give up (5/15/2014 3:21:55 PM)

Out of curiosity, may I respectfully ask which Civil War games you like?



Rosseau -> RE: I give up (5/15/2014 10:09:34 PM)

Good question, as there's not much out there. Personally, I found Forge of Freedom to be a tedious nightmare (but a good game in its time) and GG's WBtS way to simple. Scourge of War is 3D so doesn't count.

Funny, after playing Revolution Under Siege for years, I just figured out this week how to put together Corps, etc. That always eluded me, so I just modded the GameLogic file to reduce the command penalty - shame on me.



JosephM -> RE: I give up (7/6/2014 4:05:15 PM)

Hello Pitman (And others having problems getting started),

Please try looking at some videos of the game in action, which should help you get started. I have found one tutorial below, which is the first in a multi-part series.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHuwjpI3ICo



duckenf -> RE: I give up (7/12/2014 12:01:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RickInVA

Could the OP, or others that have the same frustrations, offer some examples? There could be a quick answer available.


I started with Ageod's original AACW, so I got acclimated to unit purchases that way. However, I found having them all on one screen far superior to the current model. The biggest problem I always have had is managing how much I spend -- and doing it all on one screen made it easier to switch, say a 3 element Zoauve out and a 1 unit volunteer in. And with them all grouped by states and general type (Inf, Art, Cavalry, Support, Naval, etc) you knew where they would go. In CW2, in order to be able to recruit to a specific region (which I like), you just have 10 spread along the bottom, but it is hard to determine the logic of the lineup. It sort of seems like overall strength of the group, but if you're trying to put together what will become a division in NY state, that turns out to be a real chore -- and by the time you've put in the third or fourth unit, you've forgotten what/where the other ones you bought were. It would be nice to also be able to segment it off by state as well as theater. The pop-up that can get you inf, cav, art, etc, is useful and I suppose the theater one is as well, but a more specific state option would also help. I think the replacements page works fine, but the new units one is very clumsy.

As a fix, I'd suggest a separate screen modeled on the old AACW screen; with the addition of a pop-up box appearing next to the purchase icon with checkable regions in it -- that way you can select the NY Zoauve box three times and then you can check Brooklyn for one, NYC for another and Putnam for a third (or whichever series of NY cities you can have it appear in). Indeed, you can have the option of having the computer select what cities they appear in if you don't check the region yourself. That way you can either micromanage their arrival or leave it to the computer just like in AACW.

I'd find something like that helpful.



Symple -> RE: I give up (7/20/2014 10:13:14 PM)

I do not like complexity, but I love this game. One element which simplifies the creation of division is that I use a staging area; Baltimore, Cincinnati and Cairo initially. I forward my newly built units to those areas and form division in this area before sending troops forward.
This makes planning simpler and building divisions easier.



v.Manstein -> RE: I give up (7/22/2014 11:25:42 AM)

A staging area is a great way to assemble divisions.

I think from what I remember in Civil War 1 was that a division should have 11 Infantry, 2 Cavalry, 2 Artillery and one sharpshooter. Or something along that line. What should a division be composed of in Civil War 2? Same outfit?



Symple -> RE: I give up (7/23/2014 4:01:44 AM)

Yes, the same composition works fine. There are actually reasons to vary from this idea, terrain, assaulting forts and so on, but your numbers are a good target for divisions. Also, hold a cavalry and artillery for the corps or army.
I should have added, as the South, I initially stage at Richmond and Nashville.



Philo32b -> RE: I give up (7/24/2014 2:28:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: v.Manstein

A staging area is a great way to assemble divisions.

I think from what I remember in Civil War 1 was that a division should have 11 Infantry, 2 Cavalry, 2 Artillery and one sharpshooter. Or something along that line. What should a division be composed of in Civil War 2? Same outfit?



It took me a while to fully grasp the AGEOD system, but once I did their games quickly became my all-time favorite. One thing that initially threw me off in understanding division composition is that a "unit" (the small force of 1-5 elements) that you move around on the map is not the building block of a division, the unit's elements are the building blocks. So a unit might be a brigade, for example, and it might have one regular infantry element, one conscript infantry, and one cavalry. When you are figuring out how to build the division, you look at how many elements you have (in the units), not the units themselves.

A division in CW2 has a maximum of 18 "elements," with the divisional general as one of those elements. While there is some difference in opinion on the ideal divisional composition, the standard view has it as: 1 leader (required), 4 artillery, 1 sharpshooter, 1 cavalry, and 11 infantry. Some infantry elements can be substituted for cavalry or sailors/marines or extra artillery as needed.

A must-read resource for understanding division composition, as well as several other key game strategies and concepts, is this strategy wiki for the first AGEOD civil war game. All the points in this wiki are relevant to the second game:

http://www.ageod.net/aacwwiki/AACW_strategy_guide



v.Manstein -> RE: I give up (7/24/2014 8:35:13 AM)

Thanks guys, seems a division outfit hasn't changed then. Good to know.



gexmex -> RE: I give up (7/24/2014 1:55:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

I look at this and I am surprised. I am by no means a rocket scientist, but I had no problems grasping this game.

Am I missing something?


Frankly, I'm a bit baffled by all the confusion as well. I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer either, but I learned these AGE games basically just by playing them and asking a few questions along the way. There were growing pains when I started too, but for the most part the mechanics clicked. The manual and other player's experience closed the gaps. It's not the latest and greatest RTS with slick controls and interfaces. There's a lot of information to disseminate here, so it takes more than one or two menu screens to do it effectively. To each his own, I guess. What's pleasing/easy to one person isn't necessarily so for a lot of other people, and that's fine. [:)]



Philo32b -> RE: I give up (7/25/2014 2:05:27 AM)

It just occurred to me that a major source of confusion could be resulting from the fact that players cannot form divisions and corps from the start of the major campaigns. That ability is unlocked after 3/4 of a year to a year (?) or so for each. If you are new to the game and don't know this, it will be majorly frustrated to not know why you can't do what the manual says you should be able to do. I don't recall how evident this inability is from the in-game or campaign starting instructions.



v.Manstein -> RE: I give up (7/25/2014 8:56:48 AM)

It tells you in-game via a message when you can form Corps and divisions.



johng5155 -> RE: I give up (7/25/2014 5:35:12 PM)

I am struggling with the first tutorial. I am trying to follow the instructions precisely, but after Grant defeats the reb force in Madison in late April, he refuses to move to McNairy on the following turn. Everybody else concentrates there, but Grant just sits in Madison. Since this next turn (early May) goes over organizing you forces into corps and divisions, but Grant is not there, you are stuck. If I order Grant to move again, and end the turn, he moves, but the instructions are then one turn out of synch and I can't figure out how to bring he previous turns instructions back. I have tried this scenario multiple times and it never works the way the tutorial says it should.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.59375