The Bluecoats: North vs South
Did anyone test for play balancing?
This game definitely needs some fine tuning in the area of play balancing. Regardless of the strength of the human player, the computer player has the definite advantage. To test this, I set the Union at "strong", supposedly the best setting, and the Confederate at "weak", supposedly a pushover. The Confederates routinely wiped out the Union armies. I had invested my gold in better troops and skills, which apparently had absolutely no effect on them, and the computer just kept buying run of the mill units, which would destroy my supposedly more skilled, and equal strengthed armies (I had more gold, so I could buy more troops AND skills as well). This destroys any fun factor, or realistic chance to win, as the human player, and doesn't even touch on the random Indian/Mexican war parties (depending which side the human player is playing) who routinely destroy any units/forts they encounter.
With some major play balancing, this could be a fun game, just not now.
Definitely not recommended.
June 5, 2012
What a dumb game!
I just wasted my time downloading this game, don't waste your time! The directions are lacking, was confused on how to play. Just overall boring.
May 29, 2012
This game has more differences than similarities to the American Civil War. As a history buff, I could hardly stand to play it.
Foreign intervention from France and England or someplace guaranteed! (To either side.) Mexico at war with both the USA and the CSA at the same time. American Indians wiping out entire armies on a regular basis. No troops defending Washington DC. No troops defending Richmond. No difference in difficulty of operating in friendly territory or hostile territory. It can easily happen that the Federals are occupying the South and the Confederates are occupying the North. No rail links from north to south on the east coast. The only rail link is in the West.
The game play is not realistic, and in my opinion, not fun. I saw three minigames. In the battle game, the screen wraps around, so once your cavalry reaches the east edge of the map where the enemy is, it teleports back to the west edge behind your lines. The battle is over in like 20 seconds and the computer always wins. There are practically no instructions and you can't have much of an effect on the outcome of the battle.
In the minigame where you attack or defend forts, it is a shooting gallery with enemies that shoot back, and it is so hard that you can't win. The scenery is themed to be like the wild west, even though that is not where the Civil War battles in question took place.
The third minigame is breaking the rail network to stop the enemy from shipping supplies. But they got it all wrong! The game has cavalrymen chasing trains through a wild west landscape like Monument Valley. In the Civil War, the way rail links were broken, was that a mile of railroad tracks would be torn up, heated in fires made from the railroad ties, and bent so bad they could not be reused. Destroying rail bridges was even more effective.
My guess is that this game was made by people from another country who have never visited America and do not know what the landscape of the East looks like. People who have never read books about the Civil War. People who watch lots of cowboy movies and assume that the Civil War was exactly like that.
March 4, 2013
good ideas but terrible game
I like the theme of the game but the actual gameplay leaves much to be desired. The storm and indians/mexicans are completely random and can massively change the tide of the game. The battles are ludicrous. I click my cannons immediately when they appear and attack his cannons but both of mine die and neither of his do (repeatedly). When defending or attacking a fort, I get one guy at a time who apparently can only duck for a few seconds but the opponent gets a bunch of guys who can duck at least as long and fire just as fast. I can almost wipe out an enemy unit but it is instantly back to full strength for the next attack in the same turn. Battles would have been much better done as turn-based with a lot more visibility into how they actually work. This is my first 1-star review (and hopefully my last).
June 9, 2012
I would give it zero stars if possible. No instructions or tutorial with this game. You just have to guess and none of it makes any sense. Don't bother to download this one.
June 11, 2012
I didn't even finish the demo. No matter what I did I couldn't get gold and the other side always got gold. When I saw the game title I thought it would be a great game but as others have said, the computer has too much control of the action.
July 6, 2012
Impossible to Win
I played four rounds. Even with my skill level set to maximum and the computer's set to minimum, it was impossible to win. There's no information on how to play really, let alone win. It's so heavily weighted toward to computer that it's pointless. I'm glad I just tried this game instead of buying it.
Zero stars in my opinion.
June 14, 2012
Awful game play
Waste of time game. Awkward game play, could be good but needs a lot doing to it.
June 10, 2012
So close and yet so far.
So close and yet so far. If this game moved along about 25 times faster it could be good
June 2, 2012
Horrible Awful Horrible
Ugh, review title says it all. Horrible game
May 29, 2012