Excellent strategy wargame with many strengths and multiple levels of complexity that make it longlasting (played 500+ hours in about two years, it is the game I play most).
I played the Strategic Command I a lot before. The new game is a moderate improvement overall. some additions are great (diplomacy, historical events and decisions, Headquarters, removing manpower), some not soExcellent strategy wargame with many strengths and multiple levels of complexity that make it longlasting (played 500+ hours in about two years, it is the game I play most).
I played the Strategic Command I a lot before. The new game is a moderate improvement overall. some additions are great (diplomacy, historical events and decisions, Headquarters, removing manpower), some not so (removing oil, in my opinion), some add useless complexity (3 types of bombers and multiplication of unit types with little practical value).
The real strength of the game is its sturdy combat engine, integrating unit strengths against different types of units, based on environment, technology and subtle things like entrenchment and attacking after a move. The only issue is that the mechanics to compute fighting stats are largely hidden in the manual instead of being on screen.
One fascinating aspect of the game is the asymmetry between the two sides. Playing the Axis means being the attacker but is also a race against time as the Allies get stronger all the time. Playing Allies is a matter of slowing down Axis at each step of the way.
The early game is particularly well crafted, when units are not so numerous yet as to be tedious (you cannot, say, program a unit to perform multiple moves over multiple turns, so say 'hello' to micromanagement). The inevitable script of Germany moving from Poland to France to Russia unfolds but there are still multiple twists and options that make it possible to change or tweak history (UK invasion, I am looking at you). Each game seamlessly evolves from a localized conflict to a world war. It has historical accuracy (and an understanding of the overall strategy of that war) with great playability and meaningful choices at each stage of the game.
Playing the AI is great. It is not that smart, but to learn it is great, and with a small bonus, it makes for interesting games. Playing humans remains the best after a while, although one drawback is that the PBEM can be gamed to reseed the turn if you don't like the result. Kind of sad to play like that but some players do.
On the downside, the endgames are botched. If Axis is winning, this remains sort of interesting. But after you overcome the bulk of soviet forces, tracking remaining soviet troops in faraway areas of Russia, and later preparing an invasion against a human played England later in the game with dozens of US and UK troops (the AI would just mindlessly send its units to France to die like lemmings) is just tedious. And invasion of the US is just out of question.
And if the Axis stalls at any point, the Allies take the upper hand and there is no way for the Axis to come back. Follows a very long year or two of desperately dwindling Axis forces against ever stronger Allies. It may be historically truthful, but it makes endgames boring. Whoever wins, troops keep piling towards the end so turns get longer and less strategic.… Expand
Strategic Command WWII: War in EuropeYour Score0 out of 10User Score
