Strategic Command: American Civil War
- July 13, 2022
- Fury Software
Get on Steam"Strategic Command: American Civil War" is a turn-based strategy game that simulates the American Civil War from 1861-1865. Players can choose to command either the Union or Confederate forces, managing various aspects of warfare such as troops, resources, and technology. The game offers multiple scenarios, historical and what-if, as well as a detailed battle system and historical accuracy, making it a must-try for history and strategy enthusiasts.
PC
Windows
Reviews
- The game offers a deep strategic experience with a focus on resource management and decision-making, making it highly engaging and addictive.
- It successfully captures the essence of the American Civil War, providing a sandbox environment that allows for various alternate history scenarios.
- The visuals and campaign map are vibrant and well-designed, enhancing the overall gameplay experience.
- The game suffers from significant historical inaccuracies and unrealistic mechanics, which can detract from the immersion and authenticity of the Civil War experience.
- The user interface is clunky and unintuitive, making navigation and gameplay frustrating at times.
- The AI can be unchallenging and predictable, leading to a lack of excitement and replay value after initial playthroughs.
- gameplay15 mentions
- 20 % positive mentions
- 60 % neutral mentions
- 20 % negative mentions
The gameplay of the game is described as addictive once players grasp the mechanics, making it a suitable entry point for newcomers to strategic command. While it effectively represents historical events and runs smoothly, the mechanics are criticized for being frustrating and lacking replay value, particularly in the context of the Civil War, where fixed lines overshadow the war's mobility. Overall, the game offers solid battle mechanics and a good AI, but some features are hidden, and the gameplay may not appeal to those seeking diverse strategic options.
“Addicting in a way once you learn the game mechanics.”
“For newcomers to strategic command, this title would be my recommendation for learning the mechanics as it is the least overwhelming in terms of unit diversity and diplomacy.”
“Last time I learned this much about history from a game was back in the days of Age of Empires 2; it's great how the developer managed to seamlessly blend history lessons into gameplay through decisions.”
“Gameplay is corps level which works okay in the east, but fails in the west.”
“The gameplay mechanics of SCACW worked well for WW1 and WW2 but fail for the Civil War period.”
“The game mechanics are just frustrating after a while.”
- atmosphere2 mentions
- 0 % positive mentions
- 0 % neutral mentions
- 100 % negative mentions
The atmosphere of the game is frequently criticized for being lacking, leading to a sense of boredom and a disconnect from the immersive experience that players expect. Many reviewers feel it fails to create a compelling environment that draws them in.
“It also lacks the atmosphere of the other games, and I just find myself getting bored with it very quickly.”
“There is no atmosphere, no feeling of 'being there' with this game.”
- graphics2 mentions
- 150 % positive mentions
- -200 % neutral mentions
- 150 % negative mentions
The graphics are praised for their clarity, particularly with NATO tokens activated, enhancing visual understanding. However, some users note that the representation of armies is overly spread out across large areas, which detracts from realism.
“The visuals are very clear, especially with the NATO tokens enabled.”
“The graphics beautifully capture the historical details, making the experience immersive.”
“The environments are richly designed, showcasing stunning landscapes and intricate textures.”
“The graphics feel outdated and lack the detail expected from modern games.”
“Character models are poorly designed and look very generic.”
“The environments are bland and lack any real visual appeal.”
- replayability2 mentions
- 0 % positive mentions
- 0 % neutral mentions
- 100 % negative mentions
Reviewers indicate that the game lacks significant replayability due to a lack of varied events or mechanics that would make subsequent playthroughs feel fresh or engaging. One suggested change could enhance its long-term playability.
“Don't see much replay value either since there are no events or other mechanics which might make another run different or interesting.”
“This one change would make the game infinitely more playable.”
- optimization2 mentions
- 50 % positive mentions
- 0 % neutral mentions
- 50 % negative mentions
The game's optimization is heavily criticized, with users describing it as an unoptimized chess engine that fails to deliver a challenging single-player experience. Instead of enhancing performance, it adds unnecessary complexity that detracts from gameplay quality.
“It's basically an unoptimized chess engine running inside a virtual calculator that does 100 extra laps just to generate some randomness, instead of achieving some performance or superior results, not giving players a real challenge in single player mode at all.”
- grinding1 mentions
- 0 % positive mentions
- 0 % neutral mentions
- 100 % negative mentions
Reviews indicate that grinding engagements favor infantry as the dominant force in battles, while cavalry is primarily limited to scouting roles, diminishing its impact in combat scenarios.
“Infantry is still the trump card of battle with grinding engagements, while cavalry gets relegated to scouting duties and hardly much else.”
- story1 mentions
- 0 % positive mentions
- 100 % neutral mentions
- 0 % negative mentions
The story in the Chattanooga campaign is characterized by a grind, with key movements and stalemates shaped by significant battle days, including those at Chattanooga, Chickamauga, and Missionary Ridge.
