Do you recommend this game?

[ArchFlameAx7]

I’ve been on a scrouge of war fix again and i know there’s so few good civil war wargames or strategic games like a scrounge of war,

I’ve heard theres issues no more new major content on the surface this game looks interesting but it feels like it’s a


“When it works that 10% of the time it’s amazing” type of game, i can’t help but feel like it’s something I’ll enjoy but with major caveats. So i want to see how the community feels about the game and why they recommend it or don’t, or what other games can scratch that civil war itch like Scrouge of war or this, Ive played the AGEOD civil war 2 and couldn’t really learn it. But outside of this civil war 2 and Scrouge theres not really anything else,

Ultimate general sure but it lacks a true campaign and last i heard the company was in shambles or something like that so that’s a definite hard sell for me

[crono900]

I, personally, would recommend this game.

I've had a lot of fun with it and believe it is currently the best RTS for Civil War era conflict available right now. There are mods for better playability, and once you get past the learning curve of the game, it is quite enjoyable. Look through the General Discussions for some of Didz's discussions that he posted. He too, is a new-ish player and is still on his first campaign and has been giving his own war reports as he plays, which are excellently done like a war correspondent.

If you need help with understanding something and cannot find it already answered in the discussions, then just ask and someone will likely attempt to help. The Civil War community for this game's discussions has been very civil and helpful for the most part.

[Billy]

This game is a must buy for gamers looking for possibly one of the best civil war games out there, in my opinion.

It's not perfect, and has all kinds of bugs that will occasionally make you quit playing for a bit, but what it does well more then compensates.

I've played my fair share of civil war games, and other than the nostalgia I get from R. E. Lee Civil War General, this is the game I keep coming back to for another addiction cycle.

[Ole "Slim Jolo" the Hobo Hero]

Originally posted by Billy:

It's not perfect, and has all kinds of bugs that will occasionally make you quit playing for a bit, but what it does well more then compensates.

This. Game is plenty frustrating but is still otherwise a great game. It's frustrating because plenty of the bugs we've complained about for a good long while to the devs and they never got taken care of, but over all it's still an excellent game, and one that gave me a much better perspective of what gun-powder era warfare looked like, a total-war style game that actually acknowledges battles can last several days, etc.

[Alex]

This game is a mixed bag, and it always will be.

There's a lot of worthless moving parts, half-baked ideas and the AI is woefully frustrating. Basically, for every thing you'll find in the game that is awesome, there will be something else that pisses you off. YMMV.

[Oubley]

it's crack lol you know you shouldn't be playing it but can't stop lol Tactically it's tolerable with "house" rules, strategically it sorely misses more an AGEOD ACW / Civil War 2 setup.

if you played scourge of war does that mean you've tried Take Command Second Manassas?

I don't know about others but the union player vs csa ai is pretty dreadful strategically. 90-95% of the time the AI will overload missouri and leave Tennessee and Georgia wide open.

Then in the east the AI gets to hung up in West Virginia and the valley way to often

I think at strategic level I've liked AGEOD American civil war (1st one) the best. Tactically probably Take Command Second Manassas then probably the Sierra Civil war Generals (2?) even though that can get kind of silly from a historical perspective, it's just fun and engaging and does enough of the right things.

I like the tactical part of grandt tactician just enough, but it still no take command.

HPS games have "campaigns" but the AI in those is arguably close to non existant. finding someone to play those with who isn't going to turn it into some cheesy blitzkrieg can be a challange so those probably a no go.

[ArchFlameAx7]

Originally posted by Oubley:

it's crack lol you know you shouldn't be playing it but can't stop lol Tactically it's tolerable with "house" rules, strategically it sorely misses more an AGEOD ACW / Civil War 2 setup.

if you played scourge of war does that mean you've tried Take Command Second Manassas?

I don't know about others but the union player vs csa ai is pretty dreadful strategically. 90-95% of the time the AI will overload missouri and leave Tennessee and Georgia wide open.

Then in the east the AI gets to hung up in West Virginia and the valley way to often

I think at strategic level I've liked AGEOD American civil war (1st one) the best. Tactically probably Take Command Second Manassas then probably the Sierra Civil war Generals (2?) even though that can get kind of silly from a historical perspective, it's just fun and engaging and does enough of the right things.

I like the tactical part of grandt tactician just enough, but it still no take command.

HPS games have "campaigns" but the AI in those is arguably close to non existant. finding someone to play those with who isn't going to turn it into some cheesy blitzkrieg can be a challange so those probably a no go.

I’ve played 2nd but it won’t run on my new computer Ive been playing waterloo but havent bought the remaster and i can’t play sandbox it keeps crashing and the unit Diaspora between the allied and French armies is so hilariously broken it’s pointless to play sandbox battles.

I am gonna hopefully get the remaster and dlc

[Didz]

Originally posted by ArchFlameAx7:

I’ve been on a scrouge of war fix again and i know there’s so few good civil war wargames or strategic games like a scrounge of war,

I’ve heard theres issues no more new major content on the surface this game looks interesting but it feels like it’s a


“When it works that 10% of the time it’s amazing” type of game, i can’t help but feel like it’s something I’ll enjoy but with major caveats. So i want to see how the community feels about the game and why they recommend it or don’t, or what other games can scratch that civil war itch like Scrouge of war or this, Ive played the AGEOD civil war 2 and couldn’t really learn it. But outside of this civil war 2 and Scrouge theres not really anything else,

Ultimate general sure but it lacks a true campaign and last i heard the company was in shambles or something like that so that’s a definite hard sell for me

In my opinion this game is far superior to Scourge of War if only because the UI is far more responsive and accurate, but also because it encompasses the entire war not just the battles.

Likewise, it is better than Ultimate General for the same reason and because the AI doesn't cheat quite so blatantly. So, if you like either you will probably enjoy this.

[76561198063710877]

Alex put it best. The devs abandoned the game and left it in a state where half of the game is literally non functional. I don't mean that in an ironic way, half of the things in this game literally don't work or literally don't do anything meaningful.

There are only a few maps so for example every single battle in northern Virginia will be played on the "bull run" map.

The AI is terrible. Anyone who tells you different is coping hard. The only thing that makes the AI playable is the AOM mod which greatly buffs enemy soldiers.

The game runs pretty bad on good machines and doesn't look great.

The DLC is sorely lackluster and expensive

I could go on but there are many other fundamental flaws with the game and you get the point.


The ONE saving grace of this game is there isn't something else like it in the civil war. The unique things about this game are that you can configure armies, move them on a large map, then fight tactical battles when armies engage. The people defending this game like it for those 3 reasons and are coping hard if they say different.


Take all that as you will. Personally, I have 400 hours on this game and have grown to hate it. The people defending the game will say "but you have 400 hours :p". Up to you whats important.

[Ole "Slim Jolo" the Hobo Hero]

Originally posted by 76561198063710877:

Take all that as you will. Personally, I have 400 hours on this game and have grown to hate it. The people defending the game will say "but you have 400 hours :p". Up to you whats important.

No I think that's fair, when I'd first played it I recommended it heartily as a great strategy / tactics game, great aesthetic, etc

I'd argue art direction and content of the game is still great, it's just after a while, the sheer scale of bugs and so on that have been in game for quite a while and so on just become quite grating. Collision and pathfinding errors, invincible enemy cavalry that STILL get stuck mounting for ages, enemy armies/stacks that seem to basically ignore all sorts of logic around supply, morale, readiness etc, and a player base that routinely has to edit game files for morale, retreat, etc etc just to make the game more playable/accessible in a way that compensates for how the AI otherwise cheats the player, etc

I really do lament it's quirks because I feel like it's such a great platform for all sorts of gunpowder era conflicts in general and stuff, which is why it sucks hard that even til now devs haven't been able to fix some of the issues players are complaining about routinely

Every time I pick up and play again, I eventually reach something that just annoys me so much I put the game down again. I.E my current union campaign I probably started back in November and keep putting game down for a month because I'm hitting such annoying and stupid AI movement on strategic map that just pisses me off and I gotta stop playing lol - I'm only in 1862 in this one! :p

It IS nice to still see the odd dev update and the hint they've not actually fully abandoned title yet, but it's also quite hard to trust things will be changed / fixed too, or if it's just devs trying to communicate they're 'maybe' active for the sake of netting more sales

Definitely beats something like AGEOD Civil War II tho just cuz it's nice not being turn based, fighting battles, etc, tho a title like Civil War II also from start to end is a more complete civil war experience over all if you just like the map-strategy of it and not fighting battles on a tactics map kinda deal

[Didz]

I have not recommended this game.

Mainly because I think it needs a lot of player intervention to make it playable, and I don;t think the average strategy gamer is ready to make that level of commitment to make the game work.

Just getting through the Tutorial requires a major investment of effort by the player because of all the glitches and I doubt I would ever have got beyond the Battle Tutorial without Crono900's guidance and help.

So, I'm reluctant to recommend it to the average strategy gamer who expects accurate information and solid processes.

[ArchFlameAx7]

Honestly don’t think im picking this up learning civil war 2 would be a more beneficial experience to what im looking for tbh i would probably only pick this up if its dirt cheap and even then thats with all those caveats which i think yeah theres a amazing game here i would have loved to play a whole campaign as a officer i love the experience of being One little cog at any level but i dont think this game is for me personally

[Implied Facepalm Deadmeat]

I would try the game, if it runs like ass just refund it. It seem there are many people to whom this game just doesnt work, not through lack of processing power but poor coding.

[crono900]

Originally posted by Implied Facepalm Deadmeat:

I would try the game, if it runs like ass just refund it. It seem there are many people to whom this game just doesnt work, not through lack of processing power but poor coding.

I have MSI Dragon Center and that seems to help with running the game. There are other apps similar to it that seem to help others run the game smoothly. There are quite a few other discussions that address how people dealt with the lag and fps issues that their PC has with this game. I do agree that this game has issues with coding.

[Implied Facepalm Deadmeat]

Originally posted by crono900:

Originally posted by Implied Facepalm Deadmeat:

I would try the game, if it runs like ass just refund it. It seem there are many people to whom this game just doesnt work, not through lack of processing power but poor coding.

I have MSI Dragon Center and that seems to help with running the game. There are other apps similar to it that seem to help others run the game smoothly. There are quite a few other discussions that address how people dealt with the lag and fps issues that their PC has with this game. I do agree that this game has issues with coding.

To be clear, I do recommend this game, I just wish it ran better.(its not like my pc is a potato)
Ive been fiddling with some nvidia settings and ive improved the performance maybe 20-30%.

I just wouldnt recommend the game to anyone who has the same issues of performance, I will tolerate it because im a huge civil war fan, most people would instantly refund.

[crono900]

Originally posted by Implied Facepalm Deadmeat:

Originally posted by crono900:

I have MSI Dragon Center and that seems to help with running the game. There are other apps similar to it that seem to help others run the game smoothly. There are quite a few other discussions that address how people dealt with the lag and fps issues that their PC has with this game. I do agree that this game has issues with coding.

To be clear, I do recommend this game, I just wish it ran better.(its not like my pc is a potato)
Ive been fiddling with some nvidia settings and ive improved the performance maybe 20-30%.

I just wouldnt recommend the game to anyone who has the same issues of performance, I will tolerate it because im a huge civil war fan, most people would instantly refund.

Agreed.