I give up

[pitman]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[JWW]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Moltke71]

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

[Rosseau]

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]

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