This is a game I really, really wanted to love. I picked it up a couple years ago, and gave it a second chance every 6 months or so as new updates came out, finally ending early this year after trying their DLC.

Grand Tactician is a game that truly does try to revolutionize a genre that has been largely jilted by recent Total War titles: that being a deep grand strategy campaign with real-time tactical battles. Both the genre and the setting of the American Civil War are rather starved for good titles, so this game is still actually a strong contender among its peers by virtue of the fact that the competition is so sparse.

What this game tries to do well is nothing short of groundbreaking, were it to come together as a cohesive, enjoyable end-product. Every unit you command is led by a commander, with unique traits and stats. Each commander has a relationship with other commanders, and can choose to ignore their orders if they don't respect the General providing them. Each unit develops a specialization as it gains experience, such that an infantry brigade specialized in marksmanship fights differently than one specializing as an assault unit or a zuave. You can choose the weapons for the units, and those weapons are tracked as individual items in your storehouses. Those weapons are manufactured by contract through your faction's factories, which you build up with subsidies. You cultivate your government's ability to subsidize those factories with political lobbying. The weapons and ammunition are constructed with raw materials, which vary in price based on a supply-demand system influenced by your opponent's raids, blockades, etc. In theory, every individual round fired from every individual rifle fired by every individual man you recruit from every individual state can be tracked back through your economy. I've never seen a game do this.

Order delays are another unique mechanic, one I've only ever seen in Kriegspiel and Scourge of War. There's a chain of command system in battles. When you want your infantry unit to take an action, you can visually observe the order travel via courier from your Army General, to your corps commander, to your division commander, to your brigade commander. Commanders are limited in how fast they can write and dispatch orders. Its cool stuff.

Im always hesitant to form an opinion on large games like this, because by virtue of scope they belong to a niche of people who are willing to overcome the learning curve in order to appreciate the complexity offered. At the end of the day, I believe one has to ask themselves the following questions: "Does this game respect the time commitment it asks me to make? Did I, after learning to play the game as it asks me to, ultimately enjoy my time?"

For me, after 2 years and 217 hours, the answer is "No." It a game that, every time I play it, I desperately want to enjoy. The potential bleeds through, it wants to be one of the best strategy games you'll ever play. But after years of development updates and a paid dlc, unbridled potential isnt enough to overlook the experience-ruining flaws.

I've had elite cavalry squadrons charge upon broken units, ready to slaughter them as they fled. They ran back-and-forth, allowing the exhausted and fleeing enemy to outrun them, until the dragoons themselves became exhausted, broke morale, and fled. I've had infantry in cover ready to devastate the enemy, only to refuse to fire or fall back. "At least when they break, the game will force them to route and they'll return to my line," I thought. Unfortunately, the unit remained frozen upon breaking, got entirely captured by the enemy, and immediately turned the battle into a major defeat. I've seen men in prepared trenches choose to run alone towards an entire army. I've charged my units after a routing force I outnumber 4:1, with the battle already won, only to discover that this time the unit my guys attempt to capture has the bug that causes them to never break so they wipe out my force instead. Units get stuck on fences. Units choose an idiotic path that goes in circles, and because of the order delay system you can't adjust them quickly.

On the strategic scale, I've had my army retreat from an enemy army. "Fine," I thought. "I would have liked to fight that battle, but i understand if the commander thought his odds were too poor. He'll retreat towards my line of supply and i'll reinforce him and reengage." But this army retreated deeper into enemy territory instead, chose to run around in circles in the middle of a forest where he couldnt be supplied, and remained unresponsive until my men started dying or deserting due to disease and starvation.

The game isnt well optimized. Framerate begins to steadily drop until you restart the game to reset it.

The AI is rough, and it subjectively feels worse than it did a couple years ago. I know this is a sort of staple for the genre. But it doesnt have to be.

I've had battles that were supposed to be quick 45-minute affairs turn into multi-hour ordeals. The game chooses which side is tasked with taking and holding ground. I had a battle where I was outnumbered and tasked with defending. On day two, the enemy's attack failed utterly and he pulled his troops back. Instead of the battle ending, he chose to wait for days on end for me to sally out and attack him, and because the point trickle for holding areas was so low he could wait for several real-world hours if he wanted to. Why are my only options to retreat or counter-assault? The maximum battle speed is not fast enough to fast-forward through days like this. There was no reason for a 14-day battle.

In a game where manpower reserves, weapons, supplies, and veteran troops are limited resources tracked on a national scale, bugs that can wipe out large percentages of them are game-breaking. The fact that something like this happens at least once a play session cannot be excused. This is a game that absolutely frustrates me, because the ambition and potential is absolutely there.

In the end this game feels like the really hot girl that won't stop cheating on you, and shows just enough improvement in therapy to convince you she can still get better. The dev team is ambitious and talented, and I'll hesitantly watch to see what they do next. But I don't recommend this one.

Edit 24 sep 2024:

I've gone back to try this once more after installing the AOM mod, to see if the herculean project saves the game.

While I genuinely applaud the work of the mod team, I don't think this project fixes the core issues enough to make the game enjoyable.

This is not a game that you can be assured will play better with better hardware. Many people with high-end rigs are reporting the same issues, and this game simply will not utilize the assets I make available to it.

Does the AOM mod fix the core optimization issues? No.

Should a game that is marketed at triple-A price and remains an unoptimized slog be judged by a mod that adjusts nearly every core gameplay system? No.

Even if the mod *does* change the experience for you, noticing the difference would necessitate playing long enough to exceed your refund window. I still do not recommend.

So this is a defence of the game as it stands (late summer 2020). And to perhaps save a few people who are expecting a smooth, polished, tactical wargame from being disappointed. First of all - Wow. As a historian, as a strategy gamer, as someone who loves in-depth and challenging games, and as someone with even a passing interest in the American Civil War....just wow. This game includes so many levels of the war from setting government policies, through to logistics, supply, recruitment, as well as detailed and challenging tactical battles, and much MUCH more. The depth to which a player CAN go if they so choose is impressive.

Here is an example just on recruitment - only one of the many many levels of this game. March 1862, I recruit 2 fresh brigades of infantry to the Army of Northern Virginia. That can be as simple as opening up the Order of Battle, choosing which division/s to edit, and selecting the state from which to recruit them (allowing for availability of recruits). HOWEVER, you can also choose which commander to assign to the new brigade - even promoting a plucky colonel mentioned in the newspapers. Perhaps you are desperate for manpower now, so select from the pool of draftees in Virginia? No, Georgia has plenty of volunteers, it will just take longer for them to get there, but they will have higher morale, and Virginia won't thank you for drafting too many of its citizens. But no grey or butternut for these gents, light blue trousers and red tunics because it amuses me to have half a division of "redcoats" on the field. Damn, the rest of the division they will be joining are armed with old muskets and are understrength as well. I'll merge the veteran brigades together and reequip them with Enfield rifles. There, very cool. Oh dear, the Yankee IV corp is marching on Manassass and one of my frontline divisions now has only 1 veteran brigade in its OOB with 2 green brigades more than a fortnight away....

It goes far further than that. To truly appreciate the depth and scale of this game, before you buy I would STRONGLY recommend you watch some Youtube videos of playthroughs to see if this game is for you.

The main thing to note is that this game is a PERFECT example of what Early Access should and could be on Steam. This is a game created by a tiny development team (I think there are 3 lads working on it), of a depth and scale of detail that is amazing, and filled with potential. What is currently here is, admittedly, buggy but it is an Early Access title - you buy into it to support the game's development. The team is active in the discussion groups on steam, engaging with the players and working hard to produce patches and hotfixes alongside the development.

For the more casual tactical player, this game offers historical battles and a tactical level for battles on the campaign map but in all honestly, there is nothing "casual" about this game. In battle orders take time to reach units - if the brigade is out of bugle range you see messengers galloping from the general's staff to the relevant brigade. Perhaps one of your division commanders is feuding with his corp commander and thinks he knows best, marching his division off contrary to the player's wishes. All this takes time and is contrary to the experience of many recent tactical wargames where players are used to instantaneous responses from their individual units. Its fun, its deep, its frustrating, and not easy to pick up.

TLDR:
This is a great game with awesome potential for in-depth wargamers. However, it is Early Access. It is still in development from a small studio who is using Early Access as a means of playtesting and supporting their development (almost like it is meant to be used).
* Want an easy, quick to pick up, and simple wargame? This probably is not for you.
* Enjoy in-depth and challenging wargames at multiple strategic, operational, and tactical levels? If you are happy to help support the development of one then get it. Now. Want a smooth, finished product? Then stick it on your wishlist and wait.

EDIT After another 200+ hours in this game.
I broadly maintain this original review with an additional emphasis that you probably need to be someone that enjoys seeing the development if you want to get it now, pre-release. A number of unhappy buyers seem to take offence at the pace and pattern of development. Let me state its a VERY small studio who are prioritising the bugs and issues their early access players are coming up with, as well as responding to and often implementing some changes the players suggest. If you want to be along for the development ride and simply cannot wait for full release get it. If you are still not sure, check out recent YouTube videos and get a feel for it all. It has a steep learning curve so that 2 hours limit for a Steam refund won't even scratch the surface of the depth and strategy this game can offer.

So let me start by saying I am a Civil War historian. My job is running a Civil War museum. I have been in the field for 20 years. I started Civil War gaming back in the early/mid 90's with games like No Greater Glory and Civil War General. Then I played Civil War Generals 2, and games like AGEOD Civil War, Ultimate General Civil War, and a number of other titles.

This is a good Strategic and Tactical Civil War game but it feels a little incomplete. I know the developers are working on it, and I hope they do make some changes.

I LIKE: 1) Building your own Order of Battle for your armies; that's a great feature and it's easy to do with drop and drag from one group to another or to create new units. 2) Being able to shape national policies towards recruitment, foreign relations, slavery, financing, the draft, etc. It brings a real sense that you are somewhat in control of financial policy for your side. 3) The look of the game, from the map to the leader icons really gives a great feel for the Civil War. 4) The fact that the Navy is included at all is great and it is certainly needed.

I DISLIKE: 1) I think you should have more control over recruiting units. When you recruit, there are 4 types of units to recruit; Infantry brigade at 3000 men, Cavalry brigade at 2500 men, Artillery battalion at 350 men, and a Horse Artillery Battalion at 350 men. In addition, the computer randomly assigns a leader for the unit. I think you should be able to select how many men you want in your brigade (from say, 2000-4000 or for artillery 200-500 men) and you should also be able to pick a Commander to begin with. After formation, you can pick another commander, but I think you should be able to chose one upon formation. 2) Retreat distances are ridiculous. If a unit is defeated, it retreats for DAYS. In one of my games, one of the Corps from the Army of the Potomac (Union) retreated almost to Philadelphia before it stopped. Just...NO. In another game as the CS, the Charleston Squadron was defeated in a battle off the coast of South Carolina and they retreated up river and ended up in...Chattanooga. Yes, in a river they shouldn't have even been allowed to be in. 3.) Limited Battle Maps- While the Civil War battlefield maps are really neat, there are only a few of them (or so it seems). So you could fight a battle near Pittsburgh but the battlefield map will be Manassas, Virginia. More battle maps are needed and wanted. 4.) Better battle mechanics on the tactical maps. Half the time, my units (brigades) don't follow my orders or if they do, it takes 30-45 mins to execute a movement order or they just stop, or go the other direction. Talk about frustrating.

SUGGESTIONS: 1.) So, in line with the political policies and options, I'd love to have an option where YOU are able to appoint members of your cabinet (since you are playing as the President of your country). Lincoln had some real issues picking Simon Cameron as his Sec of War to start with, and he had to be replaced with the much more effective Edwin M. Stanton. Jefferson Davis went through like 4-5 Secretaries of War in 4 years. There should be regional or state bonuses for picking certain politicians, or negative effects if you don't pick certain politicians for certain roles. I would say picking a cabinet of 5- Treasury, State, War, Navy, and "Special Adviser" to the President. There are all sorts of added bonuses or penalties you could get from this and I don't think it would be difficult to add. 2.) Add more battle maps and cut down on the retreating distances. 3.) Add options to customize the size and leaders of your brigades/battalions. 4.) SAVE GAME OPTIONS FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. You can exit but then the game doesn't seem to want to let you continue so you can't play more than one game at a time. That's frustrating too.

WRAP UP: This is one of the BETTER overall Civil War Games I've played, and I think I've played them all the last 25 years or so. It does need some improvement and some changes made to be a GREAT game. Right now, I'd give it 6.5 out of 10, but with some changes, it could be a 9 or a 9.5 out of 10. Really excited to see what happens with updates. Oh and nice soundtrack...wish you could add another dozen songs.

This is a great game and i loved playing it from 1861 to 1863 but then my game died and i could not save the campagin.
It was really fun as i saw my army grow from 2.000 to 600.000 by 1863 and its not a game that dies quickly, AI Does some really good moves and i was defeated over and over and over again. But it comes to how you cant save. I get that the dev does not want people to just restart from a quicksave done right before it but maybe make it so you can save every 7 days(Ingame time) So you can make those Backup saves so you can continue playing even if you lose your num 1 save.
But over all for a game that was just released i had a blast and i'm going to continue playing if for a long time.

First of all let me say it is in early access. I'm sure some of what I'm about to say will be fixed in the future.

Pros :
+++ Authenticity - It feels like 1861 when you play this game. A lot of love went into this game. The overview map is just fantastic. So many minor details, and things that you can customize. Plus, there are little tidbits of history added in. When I saw the main menu I really felt like this is finally the Civil War game I've been wanting. I'm not going to spoil it for you, but safe to say its already the best Civil War game available right now.

Cons :
--- The game offers you several points of information as a tutorial. You need it. This is probably the most unintuitive game I've ever played. Issuing commands is laborious and agonizing.

--- This game is in definite need of optimization. Close up map screen and battle screens are sluggish. No its not my system.

--- Officer replacement screen bugs out quite often. If your trying to replace a officer the selection window will simply go blank every so often. Restart fixes it untill it happens again.


Just a few of the problems I've encountered playing the game. Again it's EA so most of these and others will be fixed I'm sure. The dev's seem to truly love what they have created. I highly recommend this game if you are a fan of the Civil War or history, or strategy games in general. Just realize that there are some issues, give these guys a chance to fix them and this game will be great.

GT:CW is a good game and a good value. I like the flavor, immersion and the overall feel of the game. It offers a very interesting  strategic and tactical overview of the ACW. Here are my observations:

Pros:
*Overall Game Play. Its fun and interesting.
*Maps are well done and immersive.
*The strategic layer (graphics) are well done.
*Logistics are well done.
*Detail of personalities, weapons, etc., are really well done. 
*The game is quite detailed in many ways which yields immersion. All aspects of the war are represented. Naval, Political, etc..
*Good replay value. Many policy decisions that can change game parameters for interesting game play. Dynamic Tactical Maps, makes playing on the same tactical maps different for each battle.

Cons:
*The AI. Strategic and tactical game play is decent but the game is not as challenging as one would wish in some cases.
*Tactical/Battle Graphics. I think the graphics are serviceable but they are definitely not cutting edge. It did not detract from my experience but it will be a turn off for some if looking for a Total War type experience.
*Game anomalies. There are some weird bugs. EX: In my first playthru as CSA, I never saw a single enemy Union Calvary brigade in a tactical battle. I did not encounter anything game breaking though.
*Naval aspect of the game needs a great deal of work. Ex: As CSA, I parked gunboat squadrons on several key river junctions and never saw a single Union Gunboat.

Overall all its a thumbs up for me. I hope the dev continues working on the game. It really is a masterpiece in many ways. Just needs some more TLC.

Edit: Added "In my first playthru as CSA..."

Editorial Note: One thing you will notice on the forums is a host of comments about the lack of control over units, economics, commanders, etc., in the game. Be advised that many aspects of the game are a bit nebulous and more "shoot from the hip" vs. an exact science. This is especially true with the economy and naval combat. Not everything is well explained and some of learning GT:CW will be trial and error and based on "feeling" rather than exerting exact control over everything.

I have been playing American Civil War games since I was 12 (I'm now almost 40). I've always longed for a game that allowed me to control one side throughout the civil war - plan my strategy, move my armies and fight on the battlefield, and whilst there's been some good games in the genre, there was nothing that gave that amount of control. UNTIL NOW.

This game is superb. I can set my economic and foreign policy direction (without loads of micro), organise my armies (down to individual brigades, from their uniform, to their weapons to their leader), assign leaders, reward excellence, punish failure (or blame my failure on an unlucky general) and execute battles as commander in chief. The game is easy to understand after a few hours and once you get your head around the generals have their own styles derived from various traits it answers questions such as 'why isn't that general moving to attack that hill like I bloody ordered him to? Oh he's a cautious inexperienced general - that makes sense'. Battles can take place over a number of days which is very engaging and I cannot stress enough how well this represents actual civil war battles. On day one it might be a mad scramble to take objectives or wrestle control of a hill from the enemy. Over night both sides prepare their defences and plan their strategy for the next day. Perhaps I can shell the enemy defences (a la a successful Picketts Charge) and overwhelm the position before they receive reinforcements marching in from the East. Or maybe I can hold onto the high ground long enough to wear the enemy down and pluck a tactical victory from the jaws of impending defeat.

This is also the first civil war game where the casualty rates feel 'right'. In addition morale just makes sense and allows me to think more like a general of the time. Crossing open fields under cannon and volley fire is deadly and will rattle the men so maybe I need to send in waves of attack (like they did in real battles and made their tactics make more sense to me). Of course I could try to flank through those forests and streams to the West, but my units become disorganised and the men tired and I won't be able to bring up my artillery quickly and who knows if they can get in position with much daylight left - by which point the enemy may have altered or reinforced their position. Simply put the game makes you think like a civil war general.

The game can be played from the map during battles or on the 3D terrain which is great and feels very immersive. In addition the game was recently updated to include 3D sprites which are superb. On the topic of updates, the Dev has demonstrated to be very responsive to not only squashing bugs (within a day often) but in the short time since it has been out the game has been significantly improved and added to. I look forward to seeing what more they do with it.

If you like playing games about the American Civil War and want a holistic and immersive experience, I literally cannot recommend any other Civil War game more than this one. For me it's the type of game I've been waiting decades for and I was very prepared to be supremely let down. But I am pleased to report the game has lived up to its claims and aims (one of the few that do) and it is superb. If you're reading this, stop, just buy the game already.

Man, I love this game -- or at least I want to love it -- so much.

If you're into Civil War era war games, you don't exactly have a lot to choose from right now, so this is a no brainer, and I hope people will buy this so that it gets the support and patches it desperately needs.

The thing is, going in, you need to be ready to deal with so, so much jank. Some of it comes down to baffling design decisions, and some of it just reeks of under-developed elements. Be warned -- I've played two campaigns now, probably 8 months apart, and as far as I can see none of the issues I have were fixed in that space.

I'm going to brain dump a tonne of major and minor issues I have with this game. If you're okay with this list, give this a buy. But you do need to be prepared to deal with a lot of jank.

1. Attack and defence work in a truly bizarre way. Best illustrated with an example: I captured Richmond from the rebels. The rebels want it back. They initiate an attack on my army currently occupying Richmond. For some weird reason, the objective on the battle map is that I have to capture some totally random victory points. This I have lost the defensive benefit of, you know, being the defender, and have to leave my entrenchments to attack a numerically superior enemy. If I fail in this attack, my army retreats from Richmond for no reason.

Some people seem to like this because they think it simulates your commanders making bad decisions, but I find it super arbitrary and incredibly frustrating, not getting to choose when to attack and when to defend for myself.

2. The UI is an ungodly mess. As wargamers we're pretty used to this, but it really is bad. On the battle maps, icons get lost behind each other. On the strategy map, armies can also get lost behind each other, so you get into a fight and find out that actually it's two armies instead of one and you're fighting twice as many units as you thought.

Icons for units on the battle map disappear depending on zoom level, making it annoying to read the map and hard to find smaller units like skirmishers who might be a long way from the main body of your force.

3. Giving orders to units is so incredibly janky. Sometimes they'll take idiotic paths that lead them straight into the enemy lines. You'll try to recall them but the order delay stops you because apparently your units won't avoid suicide unless expressly ordered to do so by a Major General.

This pairs up with the broken UI to make organising a large army infuriating. Sometimes the UI will show that your unit is set to line formation, when actually they're moving in marching columns. To fix this you have to change to a different formation, deselect the unit, reselect it, then swap it back to the formation you actually want.

Similarly units will seemingly forget the move commands you gave them, or reset from quick march to normal speed for no apparent reason.

4. The save system is somewhat broken. When you load an old save, there's a good chance that key details of your game will have been changed. Sometimes enemy armies seem to change size (this might be that your intelligence on them has changed). If you have units set to execute orders on a particular date on the strategy map, and you reload your save, they'll execute the order immediately instead of waiting to the correct date. If you re-load a mid-battle save, states of your troops will be different. E.g. they might reset from 'engage at long range' to 'engage at medium range'. If you saved during an engagement, it means they might now be refusing to fire at the enemies in front of them. Fixing this incurs an order delay which may then cost you casualties.

5. Artillery is almost pointless. Trying to put them somewhere with line of sight is almost impossible. The game gives you almost no tools for reading elevation on the map, or for seeing line of sight from a given location, so you just have to plonk your guns somewhere and hope they manage to shoot at something.

6. Game performance is horrible. It's not a twitchy game so it's not the end of the world but it runs horribly on an RTX 3060 and Ryzen 5800X with 32GB of RAM.

7. Enemy AI can go either way. Sometimes they seem to execute quite a smart attack. Other times they'll abandon their entrenchments, go and stand in a big blob somewhere else and wait for you to encircle them and wipe out the whole army.

All of the above is a shame, and it says a lot that, given all the above, given many times when I've quit the game in disgust and vowed that I'm done with it, I keep coming back. When the huge battles get going, there's nothing else like it. I just wish some of the above would be addressed.

There's apparently paid DLC on the way. Talk of this with so many glaring issues still in place worries me, but maybe it'll bring enough of a cash injection to start tackling these things.



When you properly get a battle going, they're great. They can be really dynamic

I plan on revising this review in the coming year, my original was written while the game was still in EA.

ORIGINAL REVIEW:
I felt I had to write something about this, because I see people not really providing a full picture.

Lemme start off by saying that I love the idea, and for the work of just a few people it's amazing.
The handmade maps are breathtaking, honestly.

I think the problem people don't want to recognize is that, yeah, it is in early access. But have you seen how long they want to stay in Early Access for? This game feels like it needs at least a year but they plan on releasing this thing at the end of the year. You tell me if you think that is realistic after having played it yourself. Do you really think the AI will be better by that point?

That opens the question of skepticism, there are so many EA devs that abandon games after "completing" them. Taking the money and running. This is why people are on edge and skeptical, I think it's important to acknowledge this.

So how do we assure ourselves?

Well, go back and look at the dev's previous games and see if the same problems were true there.
Look, a dev is not obligated to continuously update a game to complete satisfaction. But If I was a dev and working on a game, I would at least want it to be something I'd be proud of or satisfied by, especially being such a small team.

So go back and look at their earlier games. And then tell me honestly if I should remain skeptical or not.

I think all I wanted to say in the review is; the game has great potential, just like any EA game. But there are so many red flags that you can not fault people for questioning the devs. No one is immune to criticism, no matter how small a dev team you are, you're still asking for money for a product.

Still, I'm curious to see where the game goes and if my skepticism was wrong, I'll come back to change the review.

2nd EDIT:
So, it appears the devs might be taking extra time to delay the release and to remain in EA a bit longer which is a great sign and decision. Seeing as they didn't release the game at the end of the year as they were planning on doing.

So who knows, I'll keep updating the review as only time will tell.

3rd EDIT:
Okay, so having had the time to test the new patches and updates, and..
Having played both sides for 1 year of in-game time I've decided to revise my review.

A lot of the bugs definitely have been squashed and finally the save-game feature has been added.

Not only that but, the combat AI has improved quite a bit. There are still definitely some pathfinding problems but I have to say I am impressed.

Now, the biggest issue of the whole game still?

The campaign AI. I've tried all the difficulties from Mediocre to Very Hard and they're both lackluster. Where to begin?

The AI never fields enough cavalry and I'm guessing it auto-upgrades to the best available equipment by default which.. is another problem entirely.

The AI is always way too aggressive and does not understand the new readiness mechanic. It keeps charging armies at me, wave after wave but just in the span of a month. They don't try and regain readiness or morale, they just keep trying and trying and.. yeah.

The readiness mechanic still needs to be balanced and made so that the AI grasps it.

Other than that?

I really wish the game kept the ability to raise militia units at a lower manpower requirement, so I could place small garrisons inside of forts.

Currently, the minimum is set at 1500 men but I feel like it could be reduced even more.
I wish certain generals like Maxcy Gregg wouldn't refuse brigade command, or what I mean is that he isn't eligible for anything except Division command and higher and this goes for many more generals, not just the one mentioned.

It's a small nit-pick but I still feel like it needs to be brought up.

The game is getting to a good point in the dev cycle, if there's something that needs to be addressed though, it is to make the campaign AI aware of time.

Avoid battling in the winter, understand to launch campaigns and not a continual attack, understand to recover losses and readiness, maybe an Historical AI that tries to push for historically plausible moves (where to attack and when, what generals to pick for each theatre etc), understand that as the Union you can focus on all fronts at the same time where as the Confederates that is more of the opposite.

When the game gets released, I will give it a final revision, but currently I can still not recommend a purchase.

I have to hand it to the developer though, they are definitely getting there!

If I had a nickel for every time I defeated a Confederate army that then retreated north through all of Ohio through two more of my armies, before completely reinforcing in the middle of Lake Erie and then coming back to invade Cleveland, I'd have two whole nickels, which isn't a lot but it's weird that it's happened twice.

The building system is useless, you will watch the AI teleport across entire states and ford rivers straight through an entire squadron of your gunboats, you will watch 3,000 men starve to death in the middle of Philadelphia because the supply system is hot garbage, and the AI will manage to tie down 80,000 of your soldiers in a battle for six months using less than a tenth of that. The game has so many great features, but it's like one step forward, two steps back because every good feature goes hand in hand with something just mindbogglingly stupid or hopelessly broken. In my latest game, the Confederacy was two billion in debt with no credit, before proceeding to glitch their army morale, raise 400,000 men, and then drown me in angry bulletproof rednecks.

The naval system is decent, but also completely useless. Blockading every single AI port has no tangible effect nor will it stop them from zerg-rushing a squadron of ironclads with several dozen tender boats with a cannon duct taped to the bow (and winning). Controlling the rivers and coast doesn't do anything, nor will it stop the AI from sailing right through your entire navy to randomly invade New York with 50,000 dudes while you're preoccupied with burning Richmond to the ground. I really want to like this game, because it's very ambitious about portraying the Civil War to a level of detail that no other game has, but it's simply too busted to like right now. The less said about optimization, UI, and performance, the better.