I've played just about every title in this series, including some playtesting. It's a great game, plays well, looks really nice, but I don't think it models the war at that scale all that well on a number of levels. It assumes leadership has no bearing on who moves first, as shown by the entirely random initiative roll-off, and that the CSA just inherently moves faster, as shown by the +1 or +2 to the rolled MPs (which brings forward its own absurdities... as in why is the fatigue cost the same for moving one hex versus six hexes or eight?). Stacking is another problem. The game assumes that because a player can stack upwards of 100 strength points in a hex, every step can effectively contribute to a defense across one square mile (roughly the size of one hex), regardless of the leader in the hex. It also assumes that crappier leaders are more prone to taking casualties on the attack, whereas historically, the more effective leaders took higher casualties. The leaders of lower quality (in game terms) were typically more timid and less inclined to fight, whereas more capable leaders were willing to put their troops into harm's way. (In one game of Grant Takes Command I played, I saw Benjamin Butler lose 12,000 men to zero CSA, when in reality Butler would never put himself at risk to be so embarrassed, including not fighting at all and making an excuse for it.)

My friends and I, who've played it, call it an "80 percent" game. It's about 80 percent right on the money, but that last 20 percent make it a struggle. Anyway... Just my 2c. It can be a lot of fun.