War of Rights will launch early access on December 3

    
16

Civil War title War of Rights is finally moving out of its long alpha testing phase into early access as of December 3rd, Campfire Games announced this morning. It’s more of a multiplayer shooter than an MMO, though its obsession with period detail in everything from uniforms and military hierarchy to battlefield layout and drills may make MMO immersionists happy.

War of Rights is a first person multiplayer game with a focus on historical authenticity set during the perilous days of the American Civil War, in the Maryland Campaign of September, 1862,” Campfire says. “Players in the game will be able to play on multiple battlefields of the campaign, from the confluence of the Potomac and Shenandoah Rivers where the Siege of Harper’s Ferry took place, to the ridgelines of South Mountain, and to the meandering waters of Antietam Creek at the Battle of Antietam. Additionally, players will also be able to choose from a list of regiments that fought in each battle as well as what rank to fight as, whether they want to slog it out as a lowly private, or if you want to orchestrate the carnage and mayhem as a major general.”

MMO fans will recall that the game pulled in over $118,000 on Kickstarter back in 2015.

Oh, and in case you’re wondering, yes, people have been arguing over whether the game’s name and premise is a good idea, given the current political situation, for quite a long time. The Danish developers have declared that they want the game to be about the people and actions on the battlefield specifically, rather than about the political situation. They’ve also said they won’t be moderating community-hosted servers.

Get caught up on our coverage to date:

Source: Steam
newest oldest most liked
Subscribe to:
laelgon
Reader
laelgon

A game that doesn’t get covered here, but I would argue is more of an MMO than some of the games that do, is Foxhole. They found what I think is a good solution to have a historic setting without attracting the specific brand of trolls that flock to these kind of games. It’s very obviously inspired by WW2, but set on a fictional continent, with fictional nations, and each nation’s aesthetic has historical influences but nothing is a 1-to-1 match. It lets people have faction loyalty and inter-faction rivalry, without it degenerating into the racist trolling historic military games tend to attract.

Reader
Mykal Quinn

I enjoyed Foxhole quite a bit, but the last several times I played it was full of team-killing trolls that I hate. I might pick it up again if what you say is true and those annoyances are gone.

laelgon
Reader
laelgon

I’d say the community has cleaned itself up quite a bit. There’s still some jerks, like any game, but people are quick to vote-ban team killers and griefers.

Most people are very friendly and willing to help out.

Reader
Bullet Teeth

Agreed 100%.

Foxhole is a fantastic game that’s come a LONG way since I bought it last year.

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Patreon Donor
Loyal Patron
Ashfyn Ninegold

Looks like a re-enactor’s dream. And the devs deserve kudos for the game’s authenticity. I’m sure it will find its niche audience, but I just don’t see this as being a widely-played PvP title.

Reader
Loyal Patron
Patreon Donor
CasualSlacks

Trolls will abound. I’ll still check it out because history is cool and so are firearms.

laelgon
Reader
laelgon

Yeah, this one is going to be rough, to be sure.

I love the gameplay of Red Orchestra 2, but for whatever reason, historic military ‘realism’ games draw out the edgelords in droves. It’s nothing but Trump, Hillary, Jewish slurs, racial slurs, homophobic slurs, “Hitler was right”, etc… It’s unbearable to play unless you completely disable voice and text chat, or you’re a twelve-year old who thinks screaming the N-word in chat is funny.

PurpleCopper
Reader
PurpleCopper

Funny how so many people get riled up about a game about the Civil War rather than games about WW2.

Everybody who took part in the Civil War is dead while we still have a whole bunch people who lived during WW2.

Reader
McGuffn

It’s not crazy to think that might eventually change. Increasingly the Germans are the only ones to remember they were the bad guys.

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Patreon Donor
Loyal Patron
Ashfyn Ninegold

I suppose if a WW2 game was entitled Aryan Supremacy, it might get a little push back.

Take all the politics out of WW2 and it’s about conquest and reconquest. Whereas the Civil War was a war of attrition until Grant took command of all the Union armies and executed a cohesive strategy.

The two wars are just about as dissimilar as you can get other than their destructive natures.

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Rees Racer

“Whereas the Civil War was a war of attrition until Grant took command of all the Union armies and executed a cohesive strategy.”

“The level of casualties suffered by Grant in some of his
operations would not be tolerated today and it is not proposed
that he was without fault. The decisions made in the Wilderness,
Spotsylvania and Cold Harbor battles cost the Union dearly in
lives and these losses probably could have been avoided.
However, the Union could afford the losses while the South could
not and Grant knew it.”

ULYSSES S. GRANT THE ARCHITECT OF VICTORY IN THE U. S. CIVIL WAR
by Lieutenant Colonel Robert G. Shields
United States Army

Reader
Skoryy

“Lincoln, always known to be unsympathetic and quick to cut bait on generals that didn’t grasp the full scope of the political as well as military necessities of winning the war, stood by Grant when the losses of the Wilderness Campaign piled up. I bring this up because it demonstrates that even then, smart minds understood that Grant wasn’t just throwing bodies into the meat-grinder, but rather he was executing a series of flanking marches that kept pushing Lee further and further back to a point from which no more offensive campaigns could be launched. Grant’s army pool was not bottomless, and those who point to his numerical advantage over Lee at this point disregard the very real public opinion factor that might have just as easily have turned the tide against Grant (in other words, if the Union’s losses were as high as they were without quantifiable gains, Grant would have been sacked). Grant knew this, as did Lincoln, and the campaign proved to be a masterful example in generalship that forced Lee into a stalemate from which he never really recovered.”

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Rees Racer

To be clear, I don’t disagree with this assessment at all. My only point was that while Grant was indeed a skilled and (sometimes) brilliant general, he was well aware the plentiful resources in the North (including the Union Army itself) meant he could use attrition to a degree to attain victory in a more timely fashion. It was not an unsound overall strategy.

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Patreon Donor
Loyal Patron
Ashfyn Ninegold

Thanks for this. Excellent summation of Grant’s talents and debunking of the drunkard myth. It’s good to remember that Lee started the Civil War as a general with an army, while Grant had no command, wasn’t even in the army. When he was finally given command of the men he had trained, he was merely a colonel. Lee was the South’s darling while Grant was slogging through the marshes of the Mississippi, far from the power and decision making in Washington, where he might have influenced (if he were that type of guy, which he wasn’t) the War Department in his favor, as others did. But it wasn’t Scott, McClellan or Halleck who won the war.