CW2... Potentially Charming, BUT...

Civil War 2 is the definitive grand strategy game of the period. It is a turn based regional game with an emphasis on playability and historical accuracy. It is built on the renowned AGE game engine, with a modern and intuitive interface that makes it easy to learn yet hard to master.
This historical operational strategy game with a simultaneous turn-based engine (WEGO system) that places players at the head of the USA or CSA during the American Civil War (1861-1865).

Moderator: Pocus

Post Reply
User avatar
GamesaurusRex
Posts: 505
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 3:10 pm

CW2... Potentially Charming, BUT...

Post by GamesaurusRex »

Sadly an utter failure due to the poorly thought out seniority rules that ultimately erase the charm.

Having thoroughly examined this game now, I am posting these comments one last time in the hopes that a patch will be forthcoming to fix this unfortunate mess. The following comments are intended for the benefit of Matrix and Ageod (because I'd like to see them sell more games), for gamers like myself (who bought this potentially charming mess), and to steer potential purchasers away from it UNTIL IT IS PATCHED.

Now on to the comments:

1) The seniority rules are ridiculous. While there is nothing wrong with the concept of seniority having to be observed in appointments and there being political costs incurred when not observed, the rest of the seniority rules are rubbish. They are so intrusive into the player's control, planning, and execution of moves in the game that it is transformed into a mere game of chance. This is not wargaming.
EXAMPLES:
A) Senior General in Region "A" retreats from Region "A" to Region "B" and causes utter nonsense in Region "B".
B) Senior General moves into a Region and randomly causes chaos... (although this example is less egregious than A because the move was at least planned).
C) The game randomly assigns a poorly rated Senior General to your capitol and LOCKS him in place until he is attacked. He outranks all other generals and thus cannot be moved essentially until the enemy defeats him and takes the capitol, which is game over. Really ? Utter rubbish.

2) Then there is the problem with the launch dates of Southern ironclads that could never have been readied as soon as they are.

3) Or the Fortresses on the coast that won't shoot at anything unless you pull all the garrisons and guns out of them and entrench them on the beach area OUTSIDE of the fort... Sigh...

I'm beginning to think this game was programmed by a 10 year old French kid that read about the Civil War in a comic book. (And the documentation was written by his 8 year old cousin).
"Real Life" is a game... THIS is war !
Poopyhead
Posts: 612
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 4:42 pm

RE: CW2... Potentially Charming, BUT...

Post by Poopyhead »

"one last time..."

One can only hope!

[:D]
Astrologers believe that your future is determined on the day that you are born.
Warriors know that your future is determined on the day that your enemy dies.
User avatar
GamesaurusRex
Posts: 505
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 3:10 pm

RE: CW2... Potentially Charming, BUT...

Post by GamesaurusRex »

Poopy... I understand your distaste for my posts on this subject, but I think that honest opinions posted by people who have bought and played the game are a courtesy to those who might be considering purchasing the game. It also benefits the companies that sell the games because such comments are in effect free "beta test" reports which they can respond to as they see fit.

Matrix has shown itself to be quite open to consumer opinions and generally interested in offering a quality product. Their efforts to maintain and improve their products through subsequent patches places them at the top of the list of game publishers. I purchased this Ageod game based upon Matrix's recommendation. Hopefully Ageod is as concerned with quality as Matrix.

As you said... One can only hope.
"Real Life" is a game... THIS is war !
Poopyhead
Posts: 612
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 4:42 pm

RE: CW2... Potentially Charming, BUT...

Post by Poopyhead »

I'm beginning to think this game was programmed by a 10 year old French kid that read about the Civil War in a comic book. (And the documentation was written by his 8 year old cousin).

It might be polite to call that comment honest, but it would not be honest to call that polite.
Astrologers believe that your future is determined on the day that you are born.
Warriors know that your future is determined on the day that your enemy dies.
Captain_Orso
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 11:21 am

RE: CW2... Potentially Charming, BUT...

Post by Captain_Orso »

ORIGINAL: GamesaurusRex

Sadly an utter failure due to the poorly thought out seniority rules that ultimately erase the charm.

Having thoroughly examined this game now, I am posting these comments one last time in the hopes that a patch will be forthcoming to fix this unfortunate mess. The following comments are intended for the benefit of Matrix and Ageod (because I'd like to see them sell more games), for gamers like myself (who bought this potentially charming mess), and to steer potential purchasers away from it UNTIL IT IS PATCHED.

Now on to the comments:

1) The seniority rules are ridiculous. While there is nothing wrong with the concept of seniority having to be observed in appointments and there being political costs incurred when not observed, the rest of the seniority rules are rubbish. They are so intrusive into the player's control, planning, and execution of moves in the game that it is transformed into a mere game of chance. This is not wargaming.
EXAMPLES:
A) Senior General in Region "A" retreats from Region "A" to Region "B" and causes utter nonsense in Region "B".
B) Senior General moves into a Region and randomly causes chaos... (although this example is less egregious than A because the move was at least planned).
C) The game randomly assigns a poorly rated Senior General to your capitol and LOCKS him in place until he is attacked. He outranks all other generals and thus cannot be moved essentially until the enemy defeats him and takes the capitol, which is game over. Really ? Utter rubbish.

2) Then there is the problem with the launch dates of Southern ironclads that could never have been readied as soon as they are.

3) Or the Fortresses on the coast that won't shoot at anything unless you pull all the garrisons and guns out of them and entrench them on the beach area OUTSIDE of the fort... Sigh...

I'm beginning to think this game was programmed by a 10 year old French kid that read about the Civil War in a comic book. (And the documentation was written by his 8 year old cousin).

The seniority rules follow military law, and reflects the history of the war. Just because they don't allow you to do just anything you want does not make them intrusive, just realistic.

1A) was discussed in another thread and was proven to be not the case as it was presented. It is a non-issue.

1B) I can make no sense of this statement at all.

1C) I can only guess that you are talking about Samuel Cooper, because the only other leader locked in one of the capitals is Scott, and he's the best leader the Union has early in the game. Cooper is not "randomly" placed in Richmond, but placed there historically. If the Union is invading Virginia and assaulting Richmond in '61 the only thing "rubbish" is the way the Confederate player is playing.

2) I'll have to look into that as I don't know the details.

3) If you would land your troops under the guns of a fort you should be court-martialled and shot. Nobody in their right mind would do that and thus the idea is not considered in the game.

The game reflects reality, and the reality is when an invasion was conducted against a fort the troops were landed outside the range, and mostly outside the sight, of the fort, and were then maneuvered to attack the fort. The invasion fleet would not sail into the guns of the fort, because they would not have to, and to do so would be stupid.

The manual has some issues, for my taste the largest being that some things are stated in a way which might be understood as being an absolute statement, when in reality they only represent certain aspects of the rules or a general best-options. Often there are far more details to the rules which are not presented.
User avatar
GamesaurusRex
Posts: 505
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 3:10 pm

RE: CW2... Potentially Charming, BUT...

Post by GamesaurusRex »

In Reply to Captain_Orso :

* "The seniority rules follow military law, and reflects the history of the war. Just because they don't allow you to do just anything you want does not make them intrusive, just realistic."

Reply: Military Law ? Reflects history ? You're confusing political appointments and influence with military law... the two are not synonymous. As for reflecting history ? Except for the Japanese in late WW2, I've never seen a general that was just totally crushed by the enemy given the authority to immediately order suicide attacks in adjacent positions as a result of his immediately preceding defeat.

* "1A) was discussed in another thread and was proven to be not the case as it was presented. It is a non-issue."

Reply: You assert this, and yet, anytime a senior ranking general retreats into an adjacent region where both side's troops are positioned, the retreating senior general may cause his side's troops in the adjacent region to either launch into an attack with him in command (which is suicide because the prior retreat result sets his activation status to non-active) or it causes them to simply abandon their entrenched positions, even if the they vastly outnumber the enemy. You say this is WAD... I say it is FUBAR.

* "1B) I can make no sense of this statement at all."

Reply: Wheat and I have observed many occasions where simply moving a second force commanded by a senior general (senior to the first force already in a region) into a region triggered the first force already in that region to simply abandon their entrenched position.

* "1C) I can only guess that you are talking about Samuel Cooper, because the only other leader locked in one of the capitals is Scott, and he's the best leader the Union has early in the game. Cooper is not "randomly" placed in Richmond, but placed there historically. If the Union is invading Virginia and assaulting Richmond in '61 the only thing "rubbish" is the way the Confederate player is playing."

Reply: Yes, it was Samuel Cooper... Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Samuel Cooper was Inspector General of the CSA Army and HE NEVER HELD A FIELD POSITION. So yes, by all means, give him a mediocre rating and lock him in charge of the defense forces in Richmond. Realistic, right ? UH... NO.

* "2) I'll have to look into that as I don't know the details."

Reply: Yeah, those historic facts are pesky, aren't they ?

* "3) If you would land your troops under the guns of a fort you should be court-martialled and shot. Nobody in their right mind would do that and thus the idea is not considered in the game.

The game reflects reality, and the reality is when an invasion was conducted against a fort the troops were landed outside the range, and mostly outside the sight, of the fort, and were then maneuvered to attack the fort. The invasion fleet would not sail into the guns of the fort, because they would not have to, and to do so would be stupid."

Reply: And yet, that is exactly what either player CAN DO under the mechanics of this game... and when they do, the garrisons and fortress guns do nothing... forcing you to work around the rules by doing something even more absurd, which is to take the guns and garrisons out of the forts and have them entrench on the beach... whereupon they grow to about 130-147 combat value each and have a chance to be released after they are attacked and in several cases I have escaped with the released guns by water movement to reinstall them somewhere else. All of this is, of course, rubbish.


* "The manual has some issues, for my taste the largest being that some things are stated in a way which might be understood as being an absolute statement, when in reality they only represent certain aspects of the rules or a general best-options. Often there are far more details to the rules which are not presented."

Reply: Yeah, about half the documentation is missing/unfinished.
"Real Life" is a game... THIS is war !
User avatar
GamesaurusRex
Posts: 505
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 3:10 pm

RE: CW2... Potentially Charming, BUT...

Post by GamesaurusRex »

ORIGINAL: Poopyhead
I'm beginning to think this game was programmed by a 10 year old French kid that read about the Civil War in a comic book. (And the documentation was written by his 8 year old cousin).

It might be polite to call that comment honest, but it would not be honest to call that polite.

One has only to observe the historic performance of the Maginot Line to suspect where the notions of fortification modeling came from in this game. Also the mania for "political correctness" in the seniority rules has a suspiciously French flavor. The seemingly random anomalous effects of seniority are quite well summed up in the phrase "C'est La Guerre!"

Anglo or Prussian sensibilities cannot relate to this notion since, in their culture, war is considered more a matter of planning and less of chance.
"Real Life" is a game... THIS is war !
User avatar
GamesaurusRex
Posts: 505
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 3:10 pm

RE: CW2... Potentially Charming, BUT...

Post by GamesaurusRex »

Oh, yeah... and while I'm at it, the reference to the "Garrison of San Antonia" is misspelled... it's San Antonio... not Antonia... and the region name near Houston, Texas should be spelled Hempstead, Texas... not Hampstead.

and whoever coded the interface such that the entrenchment level of troop positions are erased if the troops are moved or combined should never be allowed to program again. That "feature" is a royal P I T A.
"Real Life" is a game... THIS is war !
User avatar
GamesaurusRex
Posts: 505
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 3:10 pm

RE: CW2... Potentially Charming, BUT...

Post by GamesaurusRex »

And finally to put the icing on the "Stupid Cake"...

Who was it that thought it would be a good idea to display the damage level, the cohesion level, and the supply level of units in a bar graph THAT IS VISIBLE TO THE OPPONENT ???

Sigh... just plain stupid.
"Real Life" is a game... THIS is war !
Poopyhead
Posts: 612
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 4:42 pm

RE: CW2... Potentially Charming, BUT...

Post by Poopyhead »

This is a reflection of the real world ability of an army to do a recon. Region loyalty and the amount of cavalry present can influence this. Enemy units far from your cavalry in loyal regions may just be an icon with a face. Not only can the three graphic bars be displayed, but depending on the above factors the exact units present in the stack can be revealed, with their commander's name as well as the current power numbers of the units. A player would be wise to review the intel on enemy units every turn. In the U.S. Army we call this, "Know your foe".

Oops! I mistakenly thought you were actually trying to learn something, but this is obviously just another rant. Sorry.
Astrologers believe that your future is determined on the day that you are born.
Warriors know that your future is determined on the day that your enemy dies.
User avatar
GamesaurusRex
Posts: 505
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 3:10 pm

RE: CW2... Potentially Charming, BUT...

Post by GamesaurusRex »

Poopy,
There should be a certain amount of intelligence that can be gathered about the enemy in any game simulation and it should be varied by things like population loyalty, recon actions, terrain, weather, and such, BUT... the level of exposed information in this game is so revealing that there is very little fog-of-war effect at the front where the essential decisions are made.

Since you seem to know a lot about this game, please explain to me the function of redoubts. How do they differ in this game from fortresses or outposts. Do they provide any special supply effects ? How do they affect combat ? Do "in the field" entrenchments automatically turn into redoubts at level 6 ? (They seem to have the same tab symbol at that level of entrenchment... and do they become "structures" at that level that can be seiged? ) I know what the real life military purpose and function of a redoubt is, but purchasers of THIS game are wondering...

And just for fun... why does the manual on page 111 define the redoubt icon from the decision options as "surrender" ??? I have my suspicions, but I've already alluded to that in another post.
"Real Life" is a game... THIS is war !
User avatar
GamesaurusRex
Posts: 505
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 3:10 pm

RE: CW2... Potentially Charming, BUT...

Post by GamesaurusRex »

And since I am trying to be helpful with debugging... There seems to be a problem with the Generals like William Hardy ("Old Reliable"...LOL). He has a bonus trait that says he will add one experience point per turn to all units stacked with him. NOPE... NOT FUNCTIONING. NADA... NO BENEFIT. Broken code.
"Real Life" is a game... THIS is war !
Poopyhead
Posts: 612
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 4:42 pm

RE: CW2... Potentially Charming, BUT...

Post by Poopyhead »

Prayers for Paris!

I have also wondered about the whole "fort" sort of class of structures. All fort structures in general get a special frontage rule. The attacker gets 25% less frontage than the defenders and both are smaller than say, that for open terrain. Only a few pre-war forts are level two, all others are level one. A force occupying a fort has a sort of stacking limit of 25 elements times the fort level. A force larger than this is "overcrowded". An enemy force gets a bonus when it attacks and the overcrowded force takes a loss to it's to-hit number. Here is a run-down of more specific effects that I have surmised.

Stockade: This can only be built with an RGD in a region with no urban structure, i.e., town/city. It is possible to raze a level 1 or 2 town and then build a stockade. An urban structure protects only 10 elements times its size number before overcrowding occurs, so this would be to the defending forces advantage.

Redoubt: This can be built with an RGD in a region with an urban structure of any size. This is the utility that it has over a stockade. Unfortunately, a large city, like D.C. or Richmond, where a redoubt is automatically built, would normally offer a larger defensive force protection than the redoubt before overcrowding occurs. I pointed this out to AGEOD, politely, but this has not been addressed.

Fort: The actual structure with this name seems to be a hold-over from the original ACW. It is rather expensive to build, requiring actual artillery and supply units that then vanish as the structure comes into being. This is also the term used for coastal forts.

Entrenchment: About 9% of the hits that an attacker makes are stopped per level of entrenchment. This effect is limited to levels 1-4. Entrenchment levels beyond 4 only increase the accuracy of entrenched artillery. This is a reflection of the fact that the artillery position would be fortified and then the guns would be fired to actually see where the rounds would fall. A firing table is then calculated, called "charts and darts" that would hopefully be useful when the guns go hot in battle. Thus entrenchment level stops a certain percentage of hits and increases artillery accuracy, but the fort structures actually limit the frontage, or the number of elements an attacker gets to assault the walls. You can also be entrenched to level X in a fort (or city), and gain the advantages of both. However, entrenchments alone do not become forts.

If you left click on any fort icon on the map, then you get a menu at the bottom of the screen. You can then cursor over the icons in the menu to get a listing of what general supply/ammo the fort produces. You can also do this for a city and then you get a broad list.

Any general fort type under siege may eventually surrender if left to starve. A force in a fort with a supply unit, either 2 or 4 elements, will only surrender about 5% of the time, as long as supplies hold out. So I usually put a depot and a supply unit in a fort that I want to be part of my fixed frontier.

Finally, a fort gets a big Zone of Control. A force entering a region with a fort is unable to proceed into enemy territory until the fort's ZOC is reduced, which takes several turns. So a line of stockades around a redoubt in Manassas may stop a Union juggernaut on its way to Richmond.

I've been through the manual and it is about 95% accurate. Bearing in mind that originally it may have been written in French and then translated, I suppose that a few typos are to be expected.

P.S. I checked General Hardy last night. He performed perfectly as a Master Trainer, adding one experience point to each element in his stack. For this to work, the stack he is in must be stationary. If his stack is moving, the training obviously is not happening. Also, experience points and experience stars are not the same. An element needs many experience points before an experience star is added. If you cursor over an element's experience star area on the element stats menu, then you get a message as to how many experience points the element has and how many it needs for the next experience star.
Astrologers believe that your future is determined on the day that you are born.
Warriors know that your future is determined on the day that your enemy dies.
User avatar
GamesaurusRex
Posts: 505
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 3:10 pm

RE: CW2... Potentially Charming, BUT...

Post by GamesaurusRex »

Thanks !
"Real Life" is a game... THIS is war !
Poopyhead
Posts: 612
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 4:42 pm

RE: CW2... Potentially Charming, BUT...

Post by Poopyhead »

You're most welcome!
Astrologers believe that your future is determined on the day that you are born.
Warriors know that your future is determined on the day that your enemy dies.
User avatar
GamesaurusRex
Posts: 505
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 3:10 pm

RE: CW2... Potentially Charming, BUT...

Post by GamesaurusRex »

Well... After soldiering on with this mess via PBEM with a friend of mine, we have run into MORE seeming insanity. In one instance my opponent had a Corp under Lee attack Union troops that I had crossed onto the Confederate side of the river... Lee won the battle... and for some reason the game mechanics decided on it's own that it would be a good thing if Lee magically would CROSS THE RIVER AND ATTACK MASSIVELY ENTRENCHED AND CORPS SUPPORTED UNION POSITIONS ! Needless to say it didn't end well for Lee. (10,000 plus dead)

Then there occurred what I am calling "THE HAMPTON ROADS MASSACRE"... The Union had taken Norfolk and entrenched it and constructed 3 flatboats in Norfolk port with the intention of upgrading the depot there. On the subsequent turn, Lee attacked with the Army Of Northern Virginia, drove off the Union troops, and retook Norfolk and captured the 3 flatboats.

Now here is where the insanity begins...

On the following turn the Union had 3 fleets in the James Estuary (all set to "Blue Defence and Green Retreat If Attacked") and MOVED THEM ONE WATER ZONE TO HAMPTON ROADS... According to the supposed rules, this should not trigger any combat with the shore batteries in Norfolk. Nonetheless, when the Confederate PBEM player processed the turn he reported that the game seemed to be hung in loop for a bit because he had to sit through several minutes of naval battle sound effects before the turn finally finished processing.

BUT THE BATTLE WAS NOT THE PUZZLE HERE... IT WAS THE RESULTS. When the next turn logs were examined, the battle results were just unbelievable. For some reason, the Army of Northern Virginia, the militia garrison, and the flatboats had fired at the 3 fleets as they moved to Hampton Roads... but what was mystifying was the reported damage inflicted by the FLATBOATS. The ANV inflicted 33 hits... the garrison inflicted 18 hits... BUT THE FLATBOATS INFLICTED 115 HITS SINKING 17 SHIPS, obliterating 2 entire fleets ! ROFLMAO !!

Then when I go to the AGEOD forum to post this obvious bugged combat routine, I find that the troop replacement routines are buggered up as well by the recent patch.

Anyway... after attempting to play this mess for a year... and with no fixes in sight being offered by AGEOD... I am officially putting this game on my shelf to collect dust. Needles to say, I will not be looking to purchase any further AGEOD products.
"Real Life" is a game... THIS is war !
User avatar
laramieela
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 4:21 am

RE: CW2... Potentially Charming, BUT...

Post by laramieela »

Sorry to be late to the conversation, but CWII is the only game I have found which actually simulates the American Civil War with some accuracy.
I really do not understand players who do not get the magic of the AGEOD system for this era. It does its work to let you actually simulate history as opposed to other games which may be fun, but totally off as history.
Symple
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2013 12:56 am

RE: CW2... Potentially Charming, BUT...

Post by Symple »

So totally agree. There are several strategic level American Civil War games, only one actually simulates the actual war events and options. This is AGEOD's CWII game. It is truly brilliant.
My suggestion for GamesaurusRex is to explore this game in more depth. Of course any game has anomalies, it must if it uses random resolution. But try this, rerun a turn and see the various outcomes, most of which you would accept as actually viable.
ORIGINAL: laramieela

Sorry to be late to the conversation, but CWII is the only game I have found which actually simulates the American Civil War with some accuracy.
I really do not understand players who do not get the magic of the AGEOD system for this era. It does its work to let you actually simulate history as opposed to other games which may be fun, but totally off as history.
User avatar
GamesaurusRex
Posts: 505
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 3:10 pm

RE: CW2... Potentially Charming, BUT...

Post by GamesaurusRex »

ORIGINAL: Symple

So totally agree. There are several strategic level American Civil War games, only one actually simulates the actual war events and options. This is AGEOD's CWII game. It is truly brilliant.
My suggestion for GamesaurusRex is to explore this game in more depth. Of course any game has anomalies, it must if it uses random resolution. But try this, rerun a turn and see the various outcomes, most of which you would accept as actually viable.
ORIGINAL: laramieela

Sorry to be late to the conversation, but CWII is the only game I have found which actually simulates the American Civil War with some accuracy.
I really do not understand players who do not get the magic of the AGEOD system for this era. It does its work to let you actually simulate history as opposed to other games which may be fun, but totally off as history.
Symple... We reloaded the game files and ran them again to see if it was a one-off result. No luck.. it repeated the same ludicrous flatboat damage infliction on the fleets. It is a problem with the coding dealing with how flatboats are treated in battle calculations.
"Real Life" is a game... THIS is war !
Captain_Orso
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 11:21 am

RE: CW2... Potentially Charming, BUT...

Post by Captain_Orso »

ORIGINAL: GamesaurusRex

Well... After soldiering on with this mess via PBEM with a friend of mine, we have run into MORE seeming insanity. In one instance my opponent had a Corp under Lee attack Union troops that I had crossed onto the Confederate side of the river... Lee won the battle... and for some reason the game mechanics decided on it's own that it would be a good thing if Lee magically would CROSS THE RIVER AND ATTACK MASSIVELY ENTRENCHED AND CORPS SUPPORTED UNION POSITIONS ! Needless to say it didn't end well for Lee. (10,000 plus dead)

If a stack is ordered to intercept an enemy stack, by dropping it on the enemy stack, if the enemy stack retreats the attacking stack will follow, with all ensuing consequences.
ORIGINAL: GamesaurusRex Then there occurred what I am calling "THE HAMPTON ROADS MASSACRE"... The Union had taken Norfolk and entrenched it and constructed 3 flatboats in Norfolk port with the intention of upgrading the depot there. On the subsequent turn, Lee attacked with the Army Of Northern Virginia, drove off the Union troops, and retook Norfolk and captured the 3 flatboats.

Now here is where the insanity begins...

On the following turn the Union had 3 fleets in the James Estuary (all set to "Blue Defence and Green Retreat If Attacked") and MOVED THEM ONE WATER ZONE TO HAMPTON ROADS... According to the supposed rules, this should not trigger any combat with the shore batteries in Norfolk. Nonetheless, when the Confederate PBEM player processed the turn he reported that the game seemed to be hung in loop for a bit because he had to sit through several minutes of naval battle sound effects before the turn finally finished processing.

BUT THE BATTLE WAS NOT THE PUZZLE HERE... IT WAS THE RESULTS. When the next turn logs were examined, the battle results were just unbelievable. For some reason, the Army of Northern Virginia, the militia garrison, and the flatboats had fired at the 3 fleets as they moved to Hampton Roads... but what was mystifying was the reported damage inflicted by the FLATBOATS. The ANV inflicted 33 hits... the garrison inflicted 18 hits... BUT THE FLATBOATS INFLICTED 115 HITS SINKING 17 SHIPS, obliterating 2 entire fleets ! ROFLMAO !!

Then when I go to the AGEOD forum to post this obvious bugged combat routine, I find that the troop replacement routines are buggered up as well by the recent patch.

Anyway... after attempting to play this mess for a year... and with no fixes in sight being offered by AGEOD... I am officially putting this game on my shelf to collect dust. Needles to say, I will not be looking to purchase any further AGEOD products.

Norfolk will bombard fleets moving between James Estuary and Hampton Road, in either direction, because Norfolk is adjacent to both, which are adjacent to each other.

About flatboats taking part in a bombardment, I'd need to see a game save, or at the minimum some very illustrative screen shots.
Post Reply

Return to “Civil War II”