Shattered Union

What I didn't expect was that the areas themselves would take up so much space on the overall map and that one victory would take over multiple states. I also didn't expect that the units would be so incredibly limited.

The controls are confusing and encumbering but they’re not impossible to get used to so, given a bit of dedication you might just find that you budding generals out there might get all the right buttons pushed with this game.

There's the core of a truly great beer-&-pretzels wargame in here, and strategy gamers looking for a light, enjoyable romp through a ruined United States will have a lot of fun with Shattered Union, particularly in multiplayer. It's just that -- as with most political promises -- what the game is simply doesn't match up to what it could have been.

A war game for casual gamers. [Jan 2005, p.88]

The structure outside the battlefield, like the country it portrays, is broken. Shattered, if you will.

Spend enough time with it, and you'll happily overlook its missteps. [Jan 2005, p.70]

Considerably less enjoyable than the now two-year-old (and eminently enjoyable) "Massive Assault," which had better AI, a stronger political system and even better production values. Save yourself some money and pick up a copy of "Massive Assault."

It has a very simplistic strategic level that amounts to rolling craps when deciding who and where to attack.

It's not bad, but some straightforward tweaks and adjustments could have resulted in a much better game. [Feb 2006, p.60]

The decidedly fragile environments and variety of units give players a sense of having something to fight for in both campaign and multiplayer beyond the unchanging battlefields of the typical turn-based strategy game. More depth and better delivery would have made this war far more civil.

Shattered Union is distracting enough as a strategic challenge, but the concept of a second Civil War deserves something more sophisticated than Risk on a mousepad.