Matrix Games Forums

I have wars of napoleon - although I like the gameplay ion general - it does suck given the amount of nations - AI not greater. I’ve read that the AGEod works better in Civil wars II because it was developed for that game and the structure of the war fits better. Also that the AI is better do to one opponent.

The game engine, which CW2 uses was not written specifically for CW2, although during the development of CW2 and CW2 patches it was updated extensively, but I would expect nearly all of these updates to improve all games using the engine.

WON was a highly ambitious project. Not only the large number of playable factions, and minor to minuscule factions tax the engine greatly on many PC's--turn execution simply took far too long for many---but many new game concepts all had to be handled by the engine.

CW2 has one major faction to be controlled by the engine's AI, plus the Indian faction, and England, France, and Mexico on rare occasions. So the Engine is not taxed nearly as much in CW2 and there has been far less tweaking to the game system trading detail for expedience.

CW2's AI will give you an entertaining and challenging run for your money with the right game settings. The scope of the game is however not as ambitions as WON. The grand campaign runs only up to 4 3/4 years, and the map covers a much smaller part of the world, although it is also on a much smaller scale, and offers players many challenges, besides being simply beautiful to look at.

In short, Civil War II is simply a master piece in strategic gaming and will offer countless hours of exciting challenges... and I haven't even spoken about playing a human opponent [;)]

Civ War2, while interesting and full of potential is still filled with bugs and stupid rules that will disappoint in the end. It could be a good game if they fixed the problems.
Bugs like the Flatboat Anomaly where captured flatboats mysteriously sank two whole Union fleets (when, theoretically flatboat have no firepower... LOL! ).
Or situations where the combat routines cause Generals who have just been crushed in one battle to seize control of adjacent troops and order them into suicidal counter-attacks causing massive loss beyond the initial failure.
Or the strange fortress rules which prevent the forts from firing on approaching enemies and allow them to literally land on the beach without a shot being fired... leaving only a "work around" where the player is better off removing the troops and guns from the fort and digging them in on the beach where their defense is greater than in the fort.... (just plain stupid).

Other than these sorts of ridiculous quirks and bugs... the game has promise... if only they would fix them.

ORIGINAL: GamesaurusRex

Civ War2, while interesting and full of potential is still filled with bugs and stupid rules that will disappoint in the end. It could be a good game if they fixed the problems.
Bugs like the Flatboat Anomaly where captured flatboats mysteriously sank two whole Union fleets (when, theoretically flatboat have no firepower... LOL! ).
Or situations where the combat routines cause Generals who have just been crushed in one battle to seize control of adjacent troops and order them into suicidal counter-attacks causing massive loss beyond the initial failure.
Or the strange fortress rules which prevent the forts from firing on approaching enemies and allow them to literally land on the beach without a shot being fired... leaving only a "work around" where the player is better off removing the troops and guns from the fort and digging them in on the beach where their defense is greater than in the fort.... (just plain stupid).

Other than these sorts of ridiculous quirks and bugs... the game has promise... if only they would fix them.

You do realise if you listened to all the advice you've been given, and understood it, none of these 'problems' would occur don't you?

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: GamesaurusRex

Civ War2, while interesting and full of potential is still filled with bugs and stupid rules that will disappoint in the end. It could be a good game if they fixed the problems.
Bugs like the Flatboat Anomaly where captured flatboats mysteriously sank two whole Union fleets (when, theoretically flatboat have no firepower... LOL! ).
Or situations where the combat routines cause Generals who have just been crushed in one battle to seize control of adjacent troops and order them into suicidal counter-attacks causing massive loss beyond the initial failure.
Or the strange fortress rules which prevent the forts from firing on approaching enemies and allow them to literally land on the beach without a shot being fired... leaving only a "work around" where the player is better off removing the troops and guns from the fort and digging them in on the beach where their defense is greater than in the fort.... (just plain stupid).

Other than these sorts of ridiculous quirks and bugs... the game has promise... if only they would fix them.

You do realise if you listened to all the advice you've been given, and understood it, none of these 'problems' would occur don't you?

I understand that you Fan Boys offered excuses and "work arounds" which in no way diminished the fact that there are game damaging bugs that still need to be fixed... but thanks for your opinion.

ORIGINAL: GamesaurusRex


....
I understand that you Fan Boys offered excuses and "work arounds" which in no way diminished the fact that there are game damaging bugs that still need to be fixed... but thanks for your opinion.

No

You've had innumerable explanations that you don't actually understand how the game works and to use the mechanics effectively

all forums are moderated,

regarding the game, if any bugs as such can be found, with saves and advice on how to recreate, they will be fixed and sorted, same with any game on any of the forums.

ORIGINAL: GamesaurusRex

Civ War2, while interesting and full of potential is still filled with bugs and stupid rules that will disappoint in the end. It could be a good game if they fixed the problems.

CW2 does have some bugs, and lots of things I'd like to have improved, which IMHO, would make the game much better. Some simple enhancements, and maybe some things which would be much more complex, but greatly increase realism.

But some of these critiques are not founded on facts.

ORIGINAL: GamesaurusRex

Bugs like the Flatboat Anomaly where captured flatboats mysteriously sank two whole Union fleets (when, theoretically flatboat have no firepower... LOL! ).

I've heard that accusation before, but I have yet to hear it from any other source, nor seen any evidence of its validity. Anyone can simply say anything on any forum, but without scenario saves for people to repeat and analyse, it's only claims.

Program bug are repeatable, because... it's a program. Present evidence or there's no reason to believe such extraordinary claims.

ORIGINAL: GamesaurusRex

Or situations where the combat routines cause Generals who have just been crushed in one battle to seize control of adjacent troops and order them into suicidal counter-attacks causing massive loss beyond the initial failure.

A situation for which I took hours to recreate and proved that it cannot happen. A leader who loses a battle immediately is changed to PP (Passive Posture) and can have no influence on the game for the remainder of the turn.

ORIGINAL: GamesaurusRex


Or the strange fortress rules which prevent the forts from firing on approaching enemies and allow them to literally land on the beach without a shot being fired... leaving only a "work around" where the player is better off removing the troops and guns from the fort and digging them in on the beach where their defense is greater than in the fort.... (just plain stupid).

A very narrow minded assumption to believe an invasion MUST be made on the shore directly in front of fortifications. Regions are many miles across in both directions, with very few exception--Fort Sumter, Fortress Monroe, and Fort Delaware, are the only ones which occur to me at the moment, but maybe there are others--, which means, one can sail up to and land in a region with fortifications, without the fortification being able to bombard the invasion fleet, and this is historical: Island Number Ten, Forts St. Philip and Jackson, Fort Fisher, Fort Gains on Mobile Bay, all were invaded without the forts being able to bombard the invasion fleets. Look it up.

ORIGINAL: GamesaurusRex


Other than these sorts of ridiculous quirks and bugs... the game has promise... if only they would fix them.

The game if far from perfect, and I am the last person to deny its imperfections, room for improvement, or bugs... hell, I've been testing it for years, and am the first person to point out bugs and failing. But only when the are valid. Give me the saves demonstrating anything you have mentioned, and I will either confirm them and document the evidence, or explain what you might be misunderstanding.

Best regards

Does the game have some weird bugs? Of course it does just like all other games. Are they game breaking? No. None that I have encountered are. Is there things that can done to improve it? Of course but most games are like that therefore further releases. This is Civil War 2 which has enhancements over Civil War 1 and I bet if there is a Civil War 3 it will have additional enhancements.

What I have found is the game requires commitment. It is deep in that not everything is intuitive. As others have said the learning curve can be steep.

But I will say this. I have really enjoyed playing it. It takes a long time to play and requires thinking out each turn, especially if playing the CSA. If someoe wants a really good Civil War game that is both strategic and tactical then this game will fit that bill.

Well, does the game have "some weird bugs"? What are they? Can you demonstrate any?

Assuming there MUST be some bugs somewhere, because... gut feeling - perceived statistical probability - my talisman fell in the toilet this morning -- doesn't help with anything.

If you've run into something that appears abnormal, post your BackupX files, and explain the detail what you observed. This way we have an opportunity to re-run the turn, observer what you reported, gather documentation, and actually have a chance to find a bug.

ORIGINAL: Captain_Orso

Well, does the game have "some weird bugs"? What are they? Can you demonstrate any?

Well first off when starting the game it always fails. But I restart it a second time and works perfectly. Been doing this since I first installed it.

Another weird bug is how the AI will send troops way into your territory on suicide missions. This is tied to giving the AI a larger "sight". It ignores some very important areas because they are defended and instead sends a division to Atlanta.

Another weird bug is the AI playing as CSA builds tons of ships which is a waste of resources if you play on the higher difficulty. No maybe the AI gets so much money, WSU and CS that it can afford ships.

And there are others as mentioned on the AGEOD forums which you are well away of.

But as I said these are not game breaking because setting up the difficulty setting will fix most of these. The game has a very steep learning curve but if given enough time it is fun to play and rewarding.

ORIGINAL: Goodmongo

ORIGINAL: Captain_Orso

Well, does the game have "some weird bugs"? What are they? Can you demonstrate any?

Well first off when starting the game it always fails. But I restart it a second time and works perfectly. Been doing this since I first installed it.

Have you reported this to tech support? That's what they are there for, and good at.

ORIGINAL: Goodmongo

Another weird bug is how the AI will send troops way into your territory on suicide missions. This is tied to giving the AI a larger "sight". It ignores some very important areas because they are defended and instead sends a division to Atlanta.

This is a known behavior, when the game gives the AI more than just a small detection range advantage. If you are not satisfied with this behavior, don't use that setting. I don't know why that ought to be an issue.

ORIGINAL: Goodmongo

Another weird bug is the AI playing as CSA builds tons of ships which is a waste of resources if you play on the higher difficulty. No maybe the AI gets so much money, WSU and CS that it can afford ships.

It's a question of strategy. I've only played the CS in a few games, but in one I know I built every Brig I could--every single one--and put them in the Gulf Blockade Box as Runners. I got a damn fine income each turn for that.

While playing the Union, I've had opponents put a bunch of frigates in the Shipping Lanes as Raiders, which cut my income from shipping greatly, and nearly jeopardized my ability to mount an offensive for the year without first being able to build-up my armies properly.

I myself have seen the South build Transports, but I have no idea what the game settings were. But, from my experience, if the South is hard-pressed, which it ought to be, she will not have the resources to spend on her navy. If she's not keeping up with her land forces, and you're kicking her butt, while she's building boats, that would be a different story. But simply the fact that she's building ships is not a bug.

Just because some players say, there's only one strategy for the South, and if the AI does anything else, doesn't make it so. If the game offered only one Southern strategy, players would quickly become bored with the game.

ORIGINAL: Goodmongo

And there are others as mentioned on the AGEOD forums which you are well away of.

But as I said these are not game breaking because setting up the difficulty setting will fix most of these. The game has a very steep learning curve but if given enough time it is fun to play and rewarding.

And if I encounter a post on the AGEod forum complaining about some issue, which cannot be resolved from the information presented, I will request the same information there as here, evidence of the issue; ie the previous turn's Backup files, so that the issue can be repeated and studied, and a solution found.

GamesaurusRex presented some outlandish claims, peppered liberally with ad hominems. He never presented a Backup set, and I had to spend literally hours of my free time to reconstruct and study what resembled his description of a situation. I could only conclude, that his claim is not true as stated. Either he misunderstood what happened,or he described it so poorly that I could not understand his claim, or he's simply trolling. Given his penchant for using ad hominems, I almost have to think the third choice.