Shattered Union

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.

Despite some flaws with its strategic game, Shattered Union is a fun, turn-based wargame that anyone can pick up and enjoy.

Shattered Union isn’t perfect. It fits a niche market that very few developers are pursuing though.

If gamers will take the time to move beyond the initial frustrations (and politics) as well as any conditioning suffered from years of frenetic shooters, they will find a game that is both challenging and refreshing.

I know that developer PopTop and publisher 2K Games are trying to create something that is a little more console friendly, especially to those unfamiliar with the genre, but I have a feeling that much of that could have been accomplished with a bit more polish and presentation rather than cutting back on the strategic side of the experience.

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."

I found with the limitless possibilities for strategy coupled with the multiplayer capability to be a game with a pretty decent shelf life.

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

Ultimately, Shattered Union is just too frustrating to be enjoyable. Its accessibility problems are crippling and even after you've got to grips with how the game works, it still feels unbalanced and confusing. [Dec 2005, p.127]

A game tailored for strategy gaming zealots that suffers from a few shortcomings and limited appeal.

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.

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

What kills this title for me, though, is the ridiculous emphasis on scouting. How am I supposed to conquer the continent when I can only see what's happening on 20 percent of any given battle map? [Jan 2006, p.138]

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.

So overall it's a buy, except possibly for those who might find the apparent wishful-thinking anti-Americanism of the setting disturbing (It depicts Washington DC as a post-nuke grease spot with a ruin of the Washington Monument in the middle.)

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.

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

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

Achingly mediocre and its lack of innovation is frustrating. [Christmas 2005, p.96]

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.

A good entry into the turn-based strategy genre. It doesn’t offer a depth of play of some of the bigger titles, but it is fun and, more importantly, easy to pick up but difficult to master.