The first early access shot is fired in Civil War battler War of Rights


Attentive MOP readers will know that we have been covering an interesting Civil War title called War of Rights for a while now. Apparently aimed at reenactors who would love to plunge themselves into the war between the states, War of Rights offers many different historical battlefield maps while uncomfortably rubbing up against the fact that it lets people play for the slave-owning Confederates as well as the Union.

This game has made significant progress with a stream of patches over the last six years, and now War of Rights is making its official early access debut on Steam. If you want to plunk down $30, you too can engage in an “authentic Civil War experience with 150 players.”

The team set no expectations as to how long the game will be in early access but cautions that there will be a “moderate” price increase when it finally launches. Check out the trailer after the break and then bring peace to the comments section.

Get caught up on all our coverage:

Source: Steam
newest oldest most liked
Subscribe to:

Remember folks, no such thing as bad publicity. I bet there would be alot less publicity about this game if the game was titled with a generic name like “The Murican Civil War: Grey vs Blue”

As for the actual game itself, I watched a streamer on Twitch play a few games, and I found some of the mechanics to be quite interesting to watch. Will it be successful though? I’m leaning towards no. But it will be hilarious watching people roleplaying.


“War of Rights offers many different historical battlefield maps while uncomfortably rubbing up against the fact that it lets people play for the slave-owning Confederates as well as the Union.”

Odd we don’t see similar angst expressed when playing as Nazis in say, Battlefield V, etc.

Still, this should feed everyone’s deviant desire to play the rebel, the traitor to the USA.

Bree Royce
Bree Royce

This gets brought up and shot down in literally every comment section about this game. Most WW2 shooters aren’t called “Maybe The Nazis Had A Point Too, Guys,” for a start. Even in games where you play Nazis, developers are generally careful to make it clear they are still the bad guys, and when they don’t, people do let them have it. This particular Danish studio is basically attempting to avoid taking sides in a scenario where neutrality is a side. You can dig back through our old comment sections for their explanations if you like.


I’m trying to imagine historical line and column tactics when you have 75 soldiers to a side – including artillery.

“A cavalry charge! Form square!” Four guys square up to each other’s backs.

One horse rides up to the square. “Dadgummit, they squared up! Fall back!”

The horse rider takes a bullet, falls to the ground. The square breaks so everyone can dry hump the fallen cavalryman.

Axetwin .

An MMO based around the Civil War seems like a powder keg waiting to go off. Everything about it screams constant stream of bad PR.


Yep – I can only imagine the types of people and groups you’ll get fighting for the South (and the rhetoric and abuse they’ll spout in the spirit of ‘just roleplaying’).

Kickstarter Donor

I was watching one of my favourite streamers play this yesterday and although it was very pretty it definitely still has issues, from server performance to controls, to certain QoL features that would improve it immensely.
This aside though its very realistic from musket shot and cannonballs whizzing past your head to seeing little but the smoke from gunfire and little else.

It’s off to a good start, but still has a ways to go.


Shall I go first? Ok.

I was not aware of this game, so based on the information given, I think that as a reenactment and historical offering it looks promising. But a few two stand out, right away, as possible reasons I will avoid this game.

First, there is the combat. In this modern age of instant action first-person shooters, going back to old flint and powder may not fun. You shoot once then slowly reload a shot, add powder, and then stuff it down the barrel of your gun. Heh. Today’s run and gun player won’t have the patience for it, I don’t think. I might not, especially as I stand out in the open and in formation to reload. Heh.

And then, of course, there is the immaturity of the internet. I love history. And I certainly would love to relive key moments in the civil war. Bull-Run, Gettysburg, etc. etc. were horrendous battles but very important historical artifacts. BUT in these politically charged times, and given the penchant for anonymous to spew garbage, I’m afraid this game will devolve into a haven for trolls, bigotry, and social justice warriors.

So… Meh. I’ll give a friendly nod and wish everyone luck who chooses to participate.


Most firearms of the period used a paper cartridge (contains the minie ball and powder) along with a percussion cap. So shot and powder loaded at the same time. That said a skilled soldier would get off 3 rounds a minute. I tend to agree that the modern computer gamer in the majority doesn’t have that kind of patience. Certainly not the patience to stand in formation OR take and execute the precise maneuver and firing orders of the day.

Nathan Aldana

I cant be the only one who finds it kinda a skeevy, dodgy title to name it War of Rights while being completely mum on what rights those were.

(namely, slavery)

Kickstarter Donor
Rees Racer

As a perhaps more objective observer (raised in NZ/AU), but a very serious student of history with shelves of books on the American Civil War, I’ve no problem with the title.

As I realise I’m not the only audience for this type of game, I’m also asking NA gamers to please understand they are not the only gamers in the world. I’m keenly aware of human-rights and today the Māori here have a very strong voice in all things. I understand the history of slavery, worldwide.

The way I’ve interpreted the title from day-one was that the “Rights” in this game referred to several different things:
1. The legality of individual states to secede an declare independence from the USA.
2. The emancipation and freedom (rights) of the slaves.
3. The precedent for President Lincoln to invade and preserve the union.
4. The ability of each state (southern in this case, predominantly) to conduct business on their own terms.
5. The rescinding of the Constitution’s Three-Fifths Compromise after the war.
6. And, yes…the right to own slaves at all.

It would make a very cumbersome title for a game, although I agree there may have been a choice more appropriate in today’s climate…even though there are literally dozens of games that incorporate “Civil War” in the title.

At least this one stands out, and I believe encourages a broader interpretation than the sort of thing(s) some are likely to single out as patently offensive. Perhaps the Danish developers are not the best source for initiating this type of dialogue, but from a business standpoint…it has generated a great deal of publicity.


I would actually agree with much you said except for the Danish not being the best source. A perspective that is not overtly one side or the other can make for great dialog starting point.


The singular most important “right” was slavery. The others are satellite compared to it. it is literally spelled out in every letter of succession clearly. With some going so far as to point out the inferiority of African Americans.

We’ve had games where you played evil shitheads before, we’ve had shooters where you’ve played the bad guy, the naming of the game shows where they stand on this. Hundreds of Civil War games manage to avoid it. It’s only important to cling to the name (which only seems to garner negative recognition) if that’s what you feel is important. If you need that dog whistle to carry on, I’m pretty apathetic to your failure and will most likely root for your loss.

There isn’t two sides to every issue, sometimes you’re just wrong.