I was a beta tester for the game. My long review of the game is pinned on the discussion forum to the game here on Steam for you to read and comment. My brief review is this. I went in to the beta test very skeptical of the game's ability to portray the American Civil War. I was wrong. The game does a superb job of portraying the strategic and operational challenges of the conflict for both sides. Due to the standard limitations of the Strategic Command game series, no unit stacking being the most prominent, the game abstracts the tactical level of the war and some aspects of the operational level, and that will be an understandable non-starter for some and a source of argument, just as it is for the other Strategic Command games. You can see how this plays out in the game simply by looking at the images of game play provided by the publisher above. For those who want the challenges of the strategic and large scale operational aspects of the war faced by both the Union and the Confederacy, and accept the abstraction of the tactical side, it is a gem of a game, and I strongly recommend it. If you are on the fence, give it a test drive, for less than two hours. Choose the 1862 or later starting point so the game will already be well developed when you start. Give it a try and decide if it works for you.

As @cdubbs has already pointed out, the game »abstracts the tactical aspect of the game«. Other than him, I see this as a major flaw in a game representing the American Civil War, mainly because this distorts the war's time structure.

But the Positives first: on a strategic level, the game is great, in that the size of the map gives a realistic feeling of space, distance and accordingly movement, and in that the Hex map feels as the right choice of spatial modelling. It feels also a good idea to abstract some long distance movements by entry and exit boxes.

The map's size also enables a good representation of the War Theaters distinct constraints on maneuvering. The strategic time structure (turn length) seems adequate, as does the modelling of Recruiting and Research. Additionally, diplomacy and political events (some special operations being given as Yes/No-decisions, not requiring manual troop movement) are represented in a plausible way.

Now the Negatives: as indicated, not adequately modelling the tactical level takes away half the game off the game. The great battles of the War were in fact decisive contractions of space and time, where the next three or six months worth of strategic time could be predetermined by one to three days fighting in the tactical time scale. Shiloh secures half a year of strategic movement, as Antietam and Gettysburg forfeit months of strategic initiative in a couple of days. You have more of a grind in the Chattanooga campaign, but the movements and stalemates are nevertheless decided by the battle days from First Chattanooga to Chickamauga to Missionary Ridge.

So neither decisive tactical time, nor, by lack of unit stacking, tactical troop concentrations are adequately modelled. In an epoch of warfare where such contractions of time, space and force are essential for the strategic level, this approach to modelling, in my opinion, counts as failure. A »continous flow of warfare«, as modeled, for example, in the Grigsby games of the Nazi Ostfront or the Pacific War, seems adequate for war theaters on just another scale of space and committed resources. The decision just to extend and adapt the Strategic Command game engine's mechanism to Civil War doesn't play out.

Given the Positives, I would like very much if it did, but this would require extensive investment in a new module of the Engine.

TL:DR; This one is tough to review.

Short summary: It's a clunky old-school boardgame-style portrayal of ACW that seems to be fun despite lack of accuracy in portraying this conflict properly on any level. In spite of that, large amount of historical facts and lot of work put into the game as well as overall flow of game which is very historical (forced by heavily-scripted events that unfold on turn by turn basis) allow to conditionally recommend it. EDIT: Especially if you are looking for a decent TBS ACW multiplayer game.

American Civil War is difficult conflict to be accurately portrayed on every level by a single computer game. It was a war that cost hundred thousands of lives, fought both on land and sea, in trenches and more open battlefields. A lot of "what if's" scenarios are usually speculated when this conflict and its backgrounds are discussed. Most of important engagements of the war took place in 1-3 days battles fought in short albeit dynamic campaigns and both USA and CSA generals used war of manouvers to outsmart and defeat the opponent, hoping to inflict crushing blow.

There are games that provide excellent understanding of that period on operational and tactical level (like Ultimate Civil War General which is mid-weight fun real-time-war-type game). If player wants to understand how the battles were fought in that period, UCWG is the game to go with as SC: ACW is simply terrible (and I mean TERRIBLE) at proper portrayal of any aspect of war of manouvers and how the ACW was conducted on the battlefields.

Hexes represent too much of territory and lack of possibility to stack units quickly turns this game into something resembling WWI trench warfare in America, in particular eastern front along Potomac river is one big trench-style warfare battleground. If you want to launch spectacular campaing in Shenandoah valley, this is not the game that will allow you to do it (as the Valley, considering how much territory one hex represents, together with lack of stacking units, is one of the most stuffed parts of the front which prevents you from showing any of Stonewall's tricks there).

Actually, only theater that is somewhat properly represented on strategical lvl (considering real issues both CSA and USA faced) is western theater (TN, KY, MO area) as sheer size of territory allows to launch some surprising offensives here and there AND naval aspect of the war (which is a big positive considering how other games treat this aspect of ACW). However, the same cannot be said about Arizona territory (i.e 'confederate arizona' and 'union new mexico') as campaign in that area is a boring slugfest. International intervention aspect is bloated 'what-if' aspect of the game and player is forced to observed Mexican intervention eventhough it will not affect war between CSA and USA in any way in most of the games.

Heavily scripting allows to treat this game as rather historical representation of conflict and achieve some alternative outcomes researched by the historicians of this conflict, which were arguably possible (like e.g. putting all pressure in the East, in Virginia instead of going along with W.Scotts 'Anaconda" as Union player) however this historical approach also provides significant limitations and most of the choices are usually between optimal choice and risky 'what-if' choice (usually historical choice is recommended to go along with), which is ultimately not worth going for.

In the end Ultimate Civil War General with its super-elite army jumping around western and eastern theater campaign remains the best representation of ACW in the computer games area (Civil War II seems to be too abstract to be fun for majority of the players and pure observer point of view when it comes to battles is a so-so approach while SC: American Civil War allows players to get this feel of managing corpses and divisions and at least deciding who will go first against whom alas no stacking-of-units and terrain proportions on the map (ratio) leaves this game still heavily in abstract-war-game area to the point of untruthful representation of battles and their effects on the war (Civil War II is much better at representation of outcome of battles and their effects concerning war effort and alignment of societies in South and North).

Still SC:ACW is fun in its own way and good enough to fall for "I will have just one more turn" syndrome, EDIT and multiplayer is where it truly excells as a computer game, PBEM++ being particularly fun to use, thus in overall even if it is not good, it is good enough to recommend it as medium-level abstract ACW game with some nice aspects like "what-if's" events, naval combat and its rather hollistic approach to whole ACW conflict which was a daring longshot by the developers of this game, EDIT: especially that it has almost no competition at this level in multiplayer games, thus I may recommend it to the players that know what they are looking for in such a game (and what they do not need in it and still get a lot of pleasure from playing).

The Civil War was known for it's battles and leaders. This game is based on a WW2 engine. The "leaders" are headquarters and you don't get any feel for leaders and leadership which was huge in the Civil War. There aren't battles. It becomes one big long battle. This engine does NOT fit into the civil war well at all. Hard pass

This is a great game, but, alas, it is not the US Civil War.

This game is effectively the US Civil War if it was fought like WW1. Instead of mobile armies probing for each other with cavalry, and stumbling into large climactic battles, you have massive lines of trenches like the Western Front.

So, yes, it is the US Civil War, but no, it's not the US Civil War.

Otherwise, the graphics are non-existant, the sound is good, there are few if any bugs. The manual is hundreds of pages long, and you must read it. The tutorial is limited, and there is very little in the way of video guides online.

One good point is that this game did convince me to buy their WW1 version. If their US Civil War game plays exactly like WW1, then their WW1 version must be pretty good, right?

I bought the pre-Steam release version of this game directly from Matrix Games and I've been putting a lot of time into it over the past week or so.

If you're familiar with the Strategic Command system in games like SC WWII: War in Europe or SC WWII: World at War and you enjoy that like I do, then this game is a must buy.

If you're looking for a good War Between the States tactical game where you can play out historical-style battles of two armies maneuvering around and clashing in a town to then falling back to reposition, then this game is *NOT* for you.

The SC system in this game does a great job with the strategic and operational level mechanics, but the system doesn't do as well with the tactical level mechanics in this time period as they do in the WWI/WWII context. The map is huge, but the hexes are still large compared to the size of units occupying them and the SC system not allowing unit stacking means that the cramped Eastern theater by the second half of 1861 will resemble WWI siege lines with fighting taking the form of grinding attritional slugging matches rather than the historical short costly decisive engagements (at least pre-June 1864). Having a lot more room to maneuver in the Western and Trans-Mississippi theaters alleviates that problem to some degree in the west, but when two armies do clash out there you can still end up with trench lines.

That being said, I really like this game and have enjoyed my time with it so far. The SC style conceptualizing of military units and hexes, while weakening the tactical layer of this game, also makes this game a lot more accessible than other WBtS strategy games. I would imagine that an average wargamer could understand most of the systems in this game well enough to have a shot at victory after skimming the manual, an hour of trial and error, and a few restarts as opposed to something like AGEOD's Civil War II where you need to watch a YouTube tutorial series and dig through forum threads to figure out what's going on.

So if you're looking for a game that emphasizes the tactical layer over the strategic one, go buy something like Ultimate General: Civil War. If you're looking for a strategy game that doesn't sacrifice tactical complexity, go buy something like Grand Tactician: The Civil War. But if tying together reasonably satisfying land combat, naval units and blockades, river warfare, forts and coastal invasions, European relations and intervention, Indian nations and territory, technology research and production, meaningful strategic and operational management while balancing scripted historical events and player choice into a fun and accessible "just one more turn" package sounds enticing, then this is a game you could easily sink hours and hours into.

I am a veteran of the older Strategic Command titles, War in Europe, World at War and World War One. These are the games I enjoyed most during the last years.

This game is not just more like it, but it really adds new aspects and creats a whole new experience out of the existing game engine.

I need to say that I know next to nothing about the American Civil War, and hardly anything about interior US geography.

Well, I don´t know nothing about the Civil War, but everything I know I learned from watching TV with my parents in the 80ies, which meant reruns Gone With The Wind and, most importantly, North & South (or Fackeln im Sturm, as it was called in Germany). So to put this ahead - the most crucial historical aspect of the American Civil War is completely lacking from the game and that is love triangles. None whatsoever. The producer needed to cut corners, I presume.

But apart from that, I have played two full games on intermediate difficulty (I had bought the standalone version two weeks ago - if you buy through Matrix/Slitherine you automatically get Steam codes) and, with my general experience with the game engine, I succeeded it beating the Union in Dec. 1863 and the Confederacy in August 1864. Thus, I feel the difficulty is right and on par with the old titles.

From what I can tell, the campaign conveys the development to the war and the conflicting factions well. Hardly any troops in the beginnings and a lot of uncertainty and confusion, to having gigantic mass armies in the end. Also, technological progress features nicely, like when Ironclads meet wooden hulled craft for the first time.

The info and strategy popups serve as a kind of Tutorial and guide the historical newby through the game. I enjoyed the general historical info, but if you don´t, you can turn them of.

Due to the new scale of the map, there are so many units, so much stuff to buy, so many decisions to make, so many strategies to try, I have the feeling that the replay value is pretty high.

River warfare, river gunboats, river transportation adds an interesting new dimension to warfare and seems to fit the theme well. Rail transportation is perhaps a bit too fast and too easy, but I can´t judge whether it is historical.

The AI plays pretty well. Especially as the Confederacy, it played really shrewd and very aggressive. In the West and in the Tenessee/Kentucky theatre, the battle was very fluid. The large map allows for a lot of maneuvering, which surprised me. In the old titles, it was oftee a slow grind forward - or backward, depending.

The map is gigantic and in the first patch, the overview map received borders and state titles, which is a big boon for me. As a European, I find US geography confusing - like differentiating Kansas and Arkansas. I am looking forward to a 19th century wargame set in Europe and easier state names, like Großherzogtum Sachsen-Weimar-Eisenach. It is a bit sad that many interesting parts of the map don´t feature more prominently or not at all, like the Carribean islands.

While I played, I listened to an American Civil War podcast (civilwarpodcast.org - have a look, they are great!), the game music is not bad, but nothing to have all day.

As you can tell, the game is really great in my eyes. If you enjoyed the older titles, you will love this one, and if you are interested in the American Civil War as a grand strategic game, this game is for you. It is only if you want to explore the love triangle and conflicting loyalties aspect more, you need to look somewhere else.

I've been playing SC since the original SC1 and probably logged 4000 hours playing SC Europe MP but unfortunately can't recommend this one. In my opinion the MP just isn't a viable game giving an overwhelming advantage to the North with many strange game dynamics and given the way it was designed I doubt it can change.


Following is my opinion of the game:

1) The game has an enormous map that includes the Caribbean ( the ENTIRE Caribbean) & Mexico so the area of the actual war gets lost.

2) Union gunboats are laughably strong wiping out unit after unit. Doesn't matter the units size , if its entrenched in a city its going down.

3) In the MP game as the South you can put up a fight for a while the North gets so many more points & Navy eventually you have absolutely no chance. I'm in a game that by late the North has gotten 50k points and me (South) 35K -15k more points and for some reason the North has a much higher limit on research so the South can't keep up there either. Another very odd choice is this Italian (from Italy) General (who is as smart as Lee & Jackson) is given to the North. I guess there is some historical reference but I don't remember a lot of Italian Generals leading the North against Lee & Jackson, maybe I missed that lesson.

4) The Supply models allows for extremely gamy outcomes, very annoying. Cavalry can run all over the map, almost funny actually. It also makes it easy to surround cities, so your city has 0 supply and the unit behind you and enemy lines has supply of 6.

5) I certainly want a historical overtone but also the game is supposed to be a game of what if's. The game essentially gives New Orleans (which is a victory city) to the North, just get your overwhelming Navy to a hex and the units in New Orleans are wiped out with no real coast to the North. There is no way to defend it as the south, why not just put a North unit there? Huh?

6) The North gets this ridiculous amphibious ability with superhero like Marines at the beginning of the game. All they have to do is wipe out these silly weak forts and the South loses "fighting spirit" and all its convoy points. Amphibious Marines flying all over the place.

7) For some bizarre reason the game has a big focus on this western campaign (New Mexico/Colorado)& massive Native American troops. The actual New Mexico campaign lasted a couple moths, not here it goes on and on with cavalry jumping all over the place.

8) All you have to do is amphib a unit to Iuka (yep Iuka ) Mississippi and the rail line is completely severed between Richmond and everything west of Alabama. I had this accomplished when I had a firm hold on 3/4 Tennessee, an amphib goes way way behind enemy lines to cut all your rail lines. This in 1862.

I could add more but I'm tired of typing.

Sadly after playing Strategic Command for 25 years I'm moving on. One suggestion if you buy the game buy it on Steam so you can get a refund there are no refunds at Matrix.

There is no atmosphere, no feeling of "being there'' with this game but if you want a prime U.S of A geography lesson and a quite good, huge, functional war game then "Strategic Command: American Civil War " though a tad too dear is still worth considering. So yes recommended....

The game abstracts the tactical aspect of the war, but it is a very functional system familiar to anyone who has played a previous Strategic Command title. This means at times the unit concentration can look like SC: World War 1, but that is my only real negative so far. Another small negative for some might be the alternate history options, which for the most part seem necessary(?) to win as the CSA, which is probably realistic but it doesn't really leave room for a purist to not just get rolled over. The game has some balancing issues to be worked out but Fury Software has a good history of getting community feedback and really honing the multiplayer balance.

Overall I'm a big fan of this game! I find it to be an immersive civil war experience, you are commanding from the very top so I excuse all the abstraction, you simply give the orders. For me the game takes place in your respective capital war room, as you study maps and troop movements, plan out great operations, and ponder the future of the American states.

Also, I do wish the game had some more immersion related troop and casualty counts beyond the hard data of unit types and number of them. Perhaps a la Civilization V demographics, a sort of abstract number derived from the previously mentioned hard data.