I have my eye on PoN, but I'm wondering how playable the Grand Campaign has become, several years, patches, and add-ons since original release?
I'm a relative noob with AGEOD games. I made a serious attempt a couple years ago to learn Napoleon's Campaigns, and despite my efforts just couldn't get the hang of it. The outcomes of battles really seemed *very* difficult to decipher. I've long been a big fan of WW1 Gold, although I know it's not a AGEOD-developed game -- quirks and all (many of which I've come to find endearing), I'd count WW1 Gold as one of the best grand strategy games I've ever played.
Being in the mood for a Civil War game, I recently picked up Civil War II, after reading many glowing reviews. I am *hugely* impressed at how much an improvement CWII is over my previous experience with Nap's Campaigns. UI, tooltips, the battle-report are all are markedly better, and I am really glad I've 'rediscovered' AGEOD, in a sense.
I guess part of my question is: is Pride of Nations going to feel like a step backward from Civil War II? I notice, for example, that PoN seems to use the same battle mechanic and presentation as Napoleon's Campaigns, which for me raises a red flag.
The persistent reports about long turn-resolution times and general bugginess of PoN concern me. Have things improved on this front? Or does PoN still have the feel of a work in progress? (I should say that turn-resolutions for me in CWII are probably about a minute or so to process, which is totally fine as far as I'm concerned. I have a reasonably high-end computer, i7 3770k, 16GB Ram).
Any thoughts or advice welcome.