Victory and Glory: The American Civil War

Decent game concept but poor implementation. When you offer a 'different' strategic gaming model like this, you need to describe the functionality well. Also need to embrace good and proven usability and UI 'best practices' in your design. The Strategic Map is critical - and this one is pretty bad. So many specifics: Lose (or diminish) the cheesey color illustrations on the strategic map; they are distracting and serve no purpose, Provide 'at a glance'. indicators for the size of the armies. Remember the purpose of this map. The Battle Map (and functionality) is also disappointing: The strict Napoleonic limitations of Left/Center/ Right do not reflect the changing nature of Civil War tactics. The cards are a nice touch. I'm gonna get a refund for now and am still willing to check it out again later. Good luck getting it fixed.

This game is a solid development of Napoleon, but it unfortunately as a few fatal flaws. The game seems balanced too far in favour of the Confederates, and when the AI draws the card for Lee or Jackson, the game is over. No army you have will be able to stop them - it's that simple. When you do get momentum, the game is swiftly over, as you'll either crush the enemy's largest army and break the largest part of their resistance, leading to a swift march to their cities until they surrender, or your own army will be beaten and the AI will shortly march into your capital. The games all run too short - I've never had one reach 1863 - and the overwhelming feeling is one of frustration rather than fun.

This game is frustrating because it would be so much better with just a little bit more work. Take some of that feedback people are giving you on the discussion forums and implement it PLEASE. Much of this stuff wouldn't even be that hard to implement and could be done cheaply with existing assets. As it stands, the game is practically over with as soon as you get ~2 major victories. 9 out of 10 matches end with one side surrendering before Europe can get involved. Supposedly there is an "elections" mechanic after 4 years into a scenario but I've never seen it because one side always surrenders ~2 years in. Please let the player have a setting to choose how easily one side will surrender or not. This game would go from 1/5 to 3/5 with just this one simple addition.

Highly disappointing! North America looks like a desert, the pieces are not distinct as it all looks very "busy"; formations that were routed in battle and whose Command retreated are available immediately as reinforcements immediately in subsequent battles in the same area! This is a game breaker. VnG Napoleon is much better and recommended!

I want to like this game, but I want a lot of things. I have to rank this up there with trying to like knee surgery. I've put 16 hours into it, enough to know its flaws. 1) Horribly ahistorical. Grant starts out as a supremable general in 1861. ???? Seems me he has to go through Vicksburg, Shiloh, etc... before taking charge of the Army of the Potomac. Cavalry has the exact same battlefield role as it did in their Napoleonic game - sitting in the front line with the infantry, charging into their ranks, etc.... You should need them to screen retreats and pursuits, maybe give the side with greater number of cavalry units a combat advantage for having a better idea of enemy disposition. But the current implementation is just lazy. Union ironclads need a 3-1 majority to win over the Confederacy. Seems to me that wasn't the case. 2) AI cheats. Oh, they swear it doesn't. I don't believe a word. In too many battles I've been attacked by outnumbered AI opponents and had whole flanks cleared off when the AI wins a series of not-favorable attacks and defenses. Luck? Not continuously over a course of five games. Want the joy of your AI opponent walking up to your defensive line and clearing you out with a row of "low odds" volleys from recruit troops with unrifled muskets? Then you're made for this game. Who knows - you may like it. I don't. Regretfully uninstalled so I'm not temped to boot it up again and get frustrated all over again. I love the idea of a beer-and-pretzels Civil War game. This isn't one a mother could love...

This game just isn't very good. I like lightweight strategy games and wanted to give it a decent shot. But it fails. The interface is annoying with pointless delays for popups that feel just over the wrong side of the mythic "Doherty Threshold". The battle mechanics dont translate well in the porting from Napoleonic to Civil War. In the Napoleonic battles there were crushing widescale victories. In the civil war, that was unlikely to occur. But the game balance in this makes them of outsized likelihood. The logistics gives a little bit of depth but it's intensely fiddly and frustrating to use in conjunction with the limited action points. And the cards are just perfunctory and add no real depth. It feels like a very lazy port of their previous game.

Disappointing Limited strategic options, a very generic feeling to it-very much a "system" glued onto the American Civil War. Tactical combat gets tedious and repetitive very quickly, no maneuver or flanking-just rotating units forward. It gets dull fast. AI is very passive and defensive as Confederacy. It's a slow slog slamming your way thru the South, dragging soldiers from all over the North to the front lines (why can't they just appear there themselves). To hold territory you have to drop off individual units in each area-if you leave the area unoccupied it reverts to opposition control. This means a lot of fiddling with armies. Card events and leaders add a little flavor, but not much. Naval operations are very abstract and quickly become administrative burden-"fill this slot with this many naval units every turn". Nothing "memorable" occurs in the game. Played a little bit and lost interest.

The game is unbalanced giving the AI supermen in combat. No matter the difficulty chosen. And using auto in battle is suicide.

After Nearly 50 Hours, This Game Sucks The game's interface is poor and clunky. Sea combat is automated and is wholly unclear what the strategy might be, as the Union may not engage blockade runners directly. Land movement of units can also be clunky as well, as I often got a question mark when trying to move a unit with activations and movement capability, even one square. Supply was explained, but even though there was no opposing troops around and I controlled the railroad, I lost troops to supply attrition. Cavalry should be useful for interrupting rail traffic and ambushing units from the flank, but that funtionability is not here. Artillery, in an army is a game changer, but that too seems lost here. In short, the rules are unstated and vague and the interface unrealistic. Don't waste your $30, I won't play this again after nearly 50 hours of playtime.

Don't like like this game at all. Played for over 3 hours, far to many flaws and inaccuracies. Not good at all, will un-install it. Not worth the time or the money. Poor quality,