Strategic Command: American Civil War

About

"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.

Genres & Tags

Play Modes

81%

Audience ScoreBased on 190 reviews

optimization2 positive mentions

atmosphere4 negative mentions

The game offers a deep strategic experience with a focus on logistics and resource management, making it engaging for players who enjoy turn-based strategy.
The vibrant campaign map and the inclusion of various historical elements provide an intriguing backdrop for gameplay, appealing to history buffs.
It's easy to pick up and play, with a decent AI and a fun PBEM (Play By Email) system that enhances multiplayer experiences.

The game suffers from significant historical inaccuracies and unrealistic mechanics, which can detract from the immersion and authenticity of the Civil War experience.
Supply mechanics are frustrating and inconsistent, leading to illogical situations where units can remain supplied despite being cut off, while others quickly run out of supply.
The user interface is clunky and unintuitive, making navigation and management cumbersome, which can hinder the overall enjoyment of the game.

gameplay
30 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
10%
80%
10%
The gameplay of SCACW is described as addictive once players grasp the mechanics, making it a suitable entry point for newcomers to strategic command. While the game effectively represents historical events and runs smoothly, its corps-level gameplay struggles in the western theater and lacks replay value due to limited mechanics and events. Overall, it offers a solid civil war strategy experience, though some players find the mechanics frustrating and hidden features cumbersome.
- “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 game mechanics are just frustrating after a while.”
- “Don't see much replay value either since there are no events or other mechanics which might make another run different or interesting.”
atmosphere
4 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
The game's atmosphere is notably lacking compared to its peers, leading to a sense of boredom and a diminished feeling of immersion for players. Many reviewers express disappointment in the absence of a captivating environment that would enhance the overall experience.
- “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.”
graphics
4 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
25%
75%
The graphics are praised for their clarity, particularly with NATO tokens enabled, enhancing visual understanding. However, some users note that the representation of army placements is unrealistic, as they are spread over an excessively large area compared to historical accuracy.
- “Visuals are very clear, especially with the NATO tokens enabled.”
- “The graphics are quite dated and lack the detail expected from modern games.”
- “The character models are poorly designed and look very blocky.”
- “The environments feel empty and lack the vibrant detail that would enhance immersion.”
replayability
4 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
50%
50%
Reviewers generally find the game's replayability lacking, citing a lack of diverse events or mechanics that would make subsequent playthroughs feel fresh or engaging. A suggested change could significantly enhance its replay value.
- “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.”
optimization
4 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
50%
25%
25%
The game's optimization is heavily criticized, with users describing it as an unoptimized chess engine that lacks performance and fails to provide a genuine challenge in single-player mode. The excessive randomness introduced does not enhance gameplay but rather detracts from the overall experience.
- “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.”
grinding
2 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
Reviews indicate that grinding engagements heavily favor infantry, which are seen as the primary force in battles, while cavalry is largely limited to scouting roles and lacks significant impact in these prolonged confrontations.
- “Infantry is still the trump card of battle with grinding engagements while cavalry gets relegated to scouting duties and hardly much else.”
story
2 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
The story in the Chattanooga campaign is characterized by a grind, with strategic movements and stalemates shaped by key battle days, including First Chattanooga, Chickamauga, and Missionary Ridge. This narrative emphasizes the tactical challenges and historical significance of these battles.