On recording today's (27/02/2016) play, I noticed I had played the game 14 times in exactly one month, so, basically, almost every other day.
After 50 hours or so, in about 6 campaigns, here's my informed opinion: this game is very addictive. Win or lose, you will come out of the game with new plans, things you would do differently, and strategies you will want to try. I can't compare it with its competition, because it's the only strategic-level game i have played on the US Civil War, but to me it's one of the best war games I have played, period.
Now, with this is out the way, here is why I am taken with this game.
The map:
The map, like the rest of the components, favors function over spectacle. It works, it is very readable, but it's not a work of art to hang on the wall (to me, opinions differ). The more one plays, however, the more on is impressed by the cleverness of the map design. Even though the game is strategic, the hex map, together with the supply rules, creates extremely interesting operational puzzles, where the player must balance aggressiveness with concerns for the supply line, ease of channeling reinforcements and possibility of occupying natural defensive positions. The map with all its size and its details offers both freedom of movement and a real challenge to progression. It is the central piece of the game, to me.
The mechanisms:
The game plays very smoothly, with alternating activation (the operational parts) where players move their armies and conduct combat, broken by periods of reinforcement and consolidation (the strategic parts) where player put fresh troops on the map and decide where to send them. After a while, the flow becomes natural, one gets an intuitive feel for the odds in combat, what special actions can achieve, and what each general is good for. The combat table, in particular, is both easy to read and understand and subtle in its effects, in particular the way it handles small engagements. 237
For the combat itself, there are many decisions to take; the interaction of fortifications, the interception and avoid combat dynamics and the demoralization rules creates lots of friction, with the player taking calculated risks each step of the way.
The strategy:
The game has a built-in timer; the Union has a big advantage in numbers and mobility (thanks to naval superiority), but it has to make a steady progress. Every turn , the number of points required to stay in the war increases, and if the Union player falls too far behind, they lose. Though the player has complete control over where they bring the offensive, they have to be aggressive.
The Confederate is vastly outnumbered, and on the defensive during the whole game, but they can not just turtle up, or they are sure to slowly (or not-so-slowly, when I play this side) lose. To delay the Union, the Confederate has to mount threats against Northern territory. With better generals, they can and should push back and take every opportunity to be a nuisance to the bigger Union columns, by threatening their lines of communications or forcing them to take on fortified positions at a vast expense of time and men.
The game is not scripted, both players have certain things that I strongly recommend they do (coastal landings for the Union, fortifying the Mississippi for the South), but they have a great latitude in their strategies, and my games have all unfolded in different ways. As I said, refining the strategies and trying new things is a big part of the game's appeal.
Rules, balance issues:
As written above, the games plays smoothly, but, looking at the forums here and there, you could get that the impression that the rules are incomplete or ambiguous. The questions concern mainly some areas of the map, the advanced naval rules, and they way the two interact. 99% of the situations that occur in play are perfectly well handled by the rules as they are out of the box, for the 1% remaining you might want to look at the clarifications online - or make an amicable ruling on the spot and check later.
The question of play balance is a bit more troubling - in all of my games, I never once won with the South, and my more experienced opponent agreed that the South was more challenging to play. This does not detract from the experience, as we both feel the South should be harder to play, but it means that this side is very unforgiving. There is very little slack when playing the South, recovering from a string of bad luck or bad decisions is very hard. I feel reluctant to suggest modifications at this stage, though, because the way we play has evolved since we started, as I'm sure it will again, and we have not explored all of the strategic space of the game yet. 449