Detail - how does it compare to CW2?

[Dr. Strangelove]

To scratch my Civil War itch, I've been playing Civil War 2 by AGEOD a lot recently. How does this game compare when it comes to detail? CW2 features pretty much every unit, down to state militias, garrisons and port engineers. How does this compare?

[ajarnlance]

Well you are comparing a 13-year old game in its second edition with a pre-release game. Currently for me the biggest differences are that this game has:
1) Ability to fight tactical battles in real time on detailed maps.
2) More freedom to create your own OOB and move commanders around.
3) A more detailed map where roads/ rivers/ railways play a more significant role.
4) Atmospheric music and battle sound effects.
5) The economy is automated (player can make policy decisions).
6) I love the order delay system both on the campaign map and in battles.
7) Real time vs. turn-based.

AGEOD's ACW2 is a great game but I believe that this could be even better. It has ambitious goals and I for one am really excited about the potential here. Time will tell. I am enjoying playing it already and the devs are improving it every few weeks with new updates.

[Gunakor]

Land units are restricted to 3 types. Infantry, artillery, and cavalry. All start as volunteers, unlike CW2 where you can choose between volunteers or regulars. You won't be able to recruit any named historic units like in CW2, though you can rename and personalize your units, from uniform colors to commanding officers to weapon types, and create your Irish Brigade that way.

The selection of warships available to build for your navy is far greater in GT than in CW2, and I think, ideally, the importance of using your navy should be greater in this game than in CW2. Right now I don't think it is, but most of EA up to this point has been fighting bug wars, not AI balancing. Maybe I'm just hopeful, given the incredible selection of warships having been included.

I think an overall comparison between the two games is unfair though. One is a finished game, the other is a work in progress. The real time campaign is a huge improvement over the turn based CW2, but AI and economy improvements are needed to make it a more challenging real time campaign. GT also offers tactical command of the battles themselves, something CW2 doesn't offer at all.

I like this game. It has a ways to go, yet I can see the potential and I'm rather enjoying being part of the ride. But it's not CW2. They're different games.

[rogersdrums]

Originally posted by ajarnlance:

Well you are comparing a 13-year old game in its second edition with a pre-release game. Currently for me the biggest differences are that this game has:
1) Ability to fight tactical battles in real time on detailed maps.
2) More freedom to create your own OOB and move commanders around.
3) A more detailed map where roads/ rivers/ railways play a more significant role.
4) Atmospheric music and battle sound effects.
5) The economy is automated (player can make policy decisions).
6) I love the order delay system both on the campaign map and in battles.
7) Real time vs. turn-based.

AGEOD's ACW2 is a great game but I believe that this could be even better. It has ambitious goals and I for one am really excited about the potential here. Time will tell. I am enjoying playing it already and the devs are improving it every few weeks with new updates.

The ability to fight tactical battles in realtime on tactical maps within GTCW is the major difference....and thats a important one....this game has so much more potential too.....if the devs get this right it may be one of the best wargames in this generation.

[retreatbyrecoil]

In my opinion and I have played a lot of hours of Civil War II they are very very similar game with one major difference. Civil War II lacks the tactical battle aspect. ( and that is very frustrating because I love that game ). The CW II activation rule mirrors the order delay rule in this game. CW II allows you to build your brigades from selected regiments and that is much better, because you can train up regiments and mix them as you please. CW II officers are represented in a much more historical frame than this game and stays true to the historical aspect of promotion based on commission date. IN this game you can put anyone regardless of when they were commissioned in command and suffer no penalty. That is very unrealistic for the period. BUT both games have done their research and koodo's to the folks who did the work. Some would call this game a work in progress and have high hopes that all will be made good in the near future. This game has very serious code issues. Maybe the developer can fix them, maybe not. We all hope the game originators can get this train up the hill and some will take umbridge with my tone, but I am being very realistic and forthright and there really isn't anyway to sugar coat the issues this game has. If you purchase the game now and it does rise to the occasion then you will definitely have a very good grasp of how the game plays and how the game flow was designed. I think it was worth the $40 just to see something different.

[noah]

Apples to oranges. Depends on what you consider 'detail'. From a gameplay perspective, this game is more comparable to Total War than CW2. As far as units go, as explained prior, it's somewhat limited in this game to infantry, cavalry, artillery, and horse artillery. So no support units, no militia or garrison-specific forces, et cetera.

As far as historical veracity goes, it depends on how you look at it. This is a 'sandbox' game, so players are given a significant amount of leeway in how they play the game (with pretty strong OOB and unit customization, for examples). While I dispute the idea that CW2 is more accurate in its handling of officers, it is certainly more 'rigid' on its face. Historical events will occur without much player involvement.

While the primary unit of CW2 is the brigade, in reality, it's the division (as players are pushed towards forming these brigades into units, and are penalized if they do not). Obviously CW2 is turn-based and this game is real time. I don't necessarily consider real time better than turn-based, and in fact, part of me wonders whether it would've been beneficial to have the campaign map be a turn-based one, but that's neither here nor there. I won't comment on which is 'better', given the length of time between games and the current development stage of this game.

[retreatbyrecoil]

Noah I don't necessarily consider real time better than turn-based, and in fact, part of me wonders whether it would've been beneficial to have the campaign map be a turn-based one, but that's neither here nor there

I think that would have made development easier and just maybe a more complete game would be available now. It seems that the RTS campaign aspect combined with the RTS tactical portion may possibly be causing some the frustrations for the developers. Your points are well taken.