Victory and Glory: The American Civil War

About

Victory and Glory: The American Civil War is a strategic turn-based game set during the US Civil War. Players choose to lead the Union or Confederacy, managing resources, troops, and leaders to achieve victory. The game features diplomacy, political events, and historically inspired battles, with multiple victory conditions and a challenging AI.

Genres & Tags

Play Modes

Single-Player Play through the game's story or campaign solo

Victory and Glory: The American Civil War screenshot

63%

Audience ScoreBased on 125 reviews

replayability8 positive mentions

grinding2 negative mentions

The game offers a solid development of the previous Napoleon version, with improved tactical battles that include corps commanders, enhancing strategic depth.
Players appreciate the engaging card system that adds unpredictability and replayability, making the game enjoyable for fans of strategic wargames.
The game is relatively easy to learn and plays smoothly, providing a fun experience for those who enjoy lightweight strategy games.

The user interface is clunky and outdated, making navigation and gameplay frustrating, with unclear movement areas and inconsistent controls.
The game suffers from balance issues, particularly favoring the Confederates, leading to a feeling of frustration rather than enjoyment during gameplay.
Combat outcomes often feel random and disconnected from player strategy, diminishing the overall tactical experience and leading to a lack of meaningful decision-making.

replayability
16 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
50%
31%
19%
Overall, the game's replayability is mixed; while some players appreciate the unpredictability and card system that enhance replay value, others feel it diminishes quickly once players become skilled or due to limited strategic options. The user interface and lack of depth in gameplay also contribute to a perception of low replayability for some. However, certain versions of the game, particularly the civil war edition, are noted for being more flexible and offering greater replay potential.
- “Great game that does a remarkable job efficiently addressing historical issues faced by North and South, allowing the player to focus on larger strategic issues. The cards give it an element of unpredictability and replayability as well.”
- “The card system of events is excellent and adds replayability.”
- “Little replayability, awful UI that plays like an early 2000s game, and no real explanation on anything.”
- “There is some replayability here, however.”
- “This Civil War version is more flexible and has more replayability.”
gameplay
14 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
29%
50%
21%
Gameplay reviews highlight a mix of frustrations and enjoyment; while some mechanics are criticized for being poorly implemented and lacking depth, players still find the game fun and accessible. The transition of battle mechanics from Napoleonic to Civil War is noted as problematic, and the supply system can be confusing, but overall, the game remains worth playing for its engaging elements.
- “Fun mechanics.”
- “I still recommend it because it is fun, though the minimally in-depth mechanics take away from the overall feel.”
- “You'll be able to pick up the game mechanics quickly - the only thing that's not evident is the supply system (you have to garrison the entire rail line when in enemy territory - not just keeping enemy troops away).”
- “Supposedly there is an 'elections' mechanic after 4 years into a scenario, but I've never seen it because one side always surrenders about 2 years in.”
- “The battle mechanics don't translate well in the porting from Napoleonic to Civil War.”
- “Game mechanics are poor.”
graphics
10 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
40%
30%
30%
The graphics feature vibrant artwork and well-designed sprites, contributing positively to the game's aesthetic appeal. However, the map's overly colorful design can sometimes hinder strategic planning, and the interface feels somewhat clunky, reminiscent of previous titles like "Napoleon." Despite these minor drawbacks, the overall visual presentation is commendable.
- “Nice artwork.”
- “Artwork and sprites look really good!”
- “However, the broad geographical aspect of the strategic development of the war is captured.”
- “The map, although pretty, is too garish for its purpose as the graphics of the map interfere a little with the planning sometimes from the overview.”
- “The interface is still a bit 'clunky,' like 'Napoleon,' and some of the map artwork clutters up the strategic layer unnecessarily, but these are minor points in an otherwise great game.”
- “The map artwork clutters up the strategic layer unnecessarily.”
stability
3 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
67%
The game is generally stable and easy to learn, resembling a board game in its mechanics. However, some users report minor bugs and note that the tutorials, presented by the game's creator via YouTube videos, may not be ideal. Overall, while the game functions well, there are occasional stability issues that could affect the experience.
- “This game is fairly easy to learn and not buggy, making it a smooth experience.”
- “It plays much like a board game, which adds to its stability as a strategy game.”
- “Overall, the game provides a reliable and enjoyable experience without technical issues.”
- “It's a little buggy and the tutorials are the guy that made the game doing YouTube videos.”
grinding
2 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
Players find the grinding aspect of tactical combat to be tedious and repetitive, as it often lacks strategic depth, reducing gameplay to simply rotating units without meaningful maneuvers or flanking options.
- “Tactical combat gets tedious and repetitive very quickly; there's no maneuvering or flanking—just rotating units forward.”
music
2 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
The music in the game is consistently praised for its quality, with many users highlighting the soundtrack as a standout feature.
- “Great soundtrack, though!”