User Reviews (1 - 5 of 5)

Show these reviews first:

Highest Rated
Lowest Rated Newest
Oldest Most Helpful
Least Helpful

Excellent, Fast Playing

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 18 / 23
Date: March 09, 2004
Author: Amazon User

Great Game, easy to learn and fast playing with lots of strategic depth, especailly against another Human player. Your actions influence the actions of the other neutral powers. Take London and Spain may join the Axis, attack more countries as the Axis and Russian War Readiness increases, leave your border with Russia under garrisoned and Russia will accelerate its prepartions for war.

Solid grand strategy game with no eye-candy

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 4 / 4
Date: August 30, 2005
Author: Amazon User

This game reminds me very much of the old Avalon Hill game "Hitler's War". Die-cut counters move across an uncluttered map of Europe. Combat is relatively simple, allowing the players to focus on the bigger picture.

The map is a great example of the game's strengths and weaknesses. On one hand it is the easiest to read map of any strategy game I have tried. On the other hand, it is a primitive-looking hex map and has no eye-candy whatsoever. The same goes for units, research, politics, etc. Everything is functional and clean, but it looks like the game was made 10 years ago.

The reason I give this game such high marks is that the AI is quite good and that the game's apparent simplicity allows you to think like a WWII statesman instead of thinking like a computer game player. The game is simpler than most other similar games, but all the abstractions seem well-thought out and add rather than subtract from game-play.

For example, provided you have the resources, you can buy any unit at any time, without any waiting time. While this is unrealistic (in real life it takes many years to build a new battleship) it also means you don't have to learn a complex UI. And in this case, the simplification doesn't take anything away form the feel of the game. In other areas the game authors have kept some complexity, for example in the way HQ units work. This slight complexity adds flavor to the game because it is relevant.

I heartily recommend this game to any armchair general who wants a grand strategy game with a nice learning curve.

Pretty Dire

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 4 / 5
Date: December 09, 2005
Author: Amazon User

It's not the graphics or the hex gameboard that is the problem in this game. Graphics are pretty minimal, but given good gameplay, this could be easily forgiven. Unfortunately, the gameplay is pretty awful.

I have persevered with this game a few times, but I cannot say I have enjoyed any of the time I have wasted on it. The combat system is really bad. It's a bit like Axis and Allies the board game, minus the fun and the fast play. You can build tank units, planes, bombers, ships, etc. When it comes to infantry, you can build Army or Corps. But you cannot combine Corps into Armies, or divide Armies into Corps. The combat system is even poorer than that in Civ games.

The political possibilities in the game are also overestimated. I played Germany three times, and on each occasion, no matter what I did, I always ended up at war with the Soviet Union and America, whether I declared it or not. There are nuetral countries that can be invaded, but frankly, you would be wasting your time invading them as it only speeds up other powers declaring war on you.

Development of industry and weapons it pretty samey as well. Whilst they do give you an edge over the enemy, there is so many categories that you really find it hard to care. The problem is that in a day an age where you have Hearts of Iron II, this game is simply not good enough. Hearts of Iron has so much more depth and detail. Even if this game was produced some 10 years ago, you would still think it pretty samey, but by today's standards it is simply not good enough in any sense of the word. A total waste of money. I have a copy in good condition if anyone wants it.

A blast to play

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 0 / 0
Date: March 11, 2006
Author: Amazon User

Strategic Command strikes an excellent balance between simulation on a strategic level and playability. A WWII European theatre scope game can easily get bogged down with details, making micromanaging and playing a headache. Some folks like that; others prefer a game that compromises on detail in favor of something that is fun to play. SC focuses on the latter, yet still captures the feel of WWII from a strategic perspective -- the German blitzkreigs in Poland, Denmark, France, and Russia in '41; the war of attrition in Russia in the later years; and, if the Germans do not capture enough strategic resources, the growing mass of allied forces, leading inevitably to the invasion of France and collapse of the Wermacht against the overwhelming Russian hordes.

The mechanics of the user interface is excellent. You almost don't need to read the manual to play -- though you will want to develop the tactical skill to play the game effectively. Click on a unit and its movement options are highlighted. Use of ground, navy, and air forces are simple matters done with minimal clicking. Necessary menus are easily accessible. There is no stacking, and therefore no wading through piles of units to determine what your forces are. And while this is a strategic level game, proper use of tactics is critical -- use of natural defenses, the right mix of units, and air power in the proper tactics is critical to success.

The game presents an enormous breadth of strategic options, which greatly increases its replay value. As the Germans, conquering various minor builds economic power, but at the expense of inducing Russia or the US to engage earlier. The technological race can be critical. The determination of which units to produce will affect your options and success on the ground. And there are the strategic deployment choices - As the Axis, should you try to take Egypt? Greece? Sweden? Spain? As the Allies, should you commit the navy to the Mediterranean? Concentrate on a Mediterranean strategy or build your forces for an earlier invasion of France?

It is not without faults - the strategic submarine warfare aspect of WWII is not well implemented because submarines are too easily spotted, making them almost worthless. But it is a wonderfully fun game to play. You can fight WWII in a couple of nights. The AI is pretty competent, although it will eventually be mastered. But it is also a great game for PBEM (or you can play in real time over the internet) against human opponents -- I have enjoyed many struggles to conquer the world (or prevent that from happening) with other players, who can be found at various SC fan sites.

If historical detail -- along with the micromanagement of that detail, is what appeals to you, you might like something like Hearts of Iron better. But if a game that captures the strategic feel or WWII and is simple and a blast to play is more in your line, SC is hard to beat.

Simple and Very Playable

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 0 / 0
Date: July 13, 2006
Author: Amazon User

Strategic Command is a very simple WWII stratgy game. Its strengths are the drawbacks. It is not a real time game. You don't need to read a large manual or spend months 'practicing' to play. There are no amazing graphics or fake battle videos to watch before, during or after play. There is no political component, you are in command and must attack and destroy (effectively and quickly).

Strategic Command is a classic chess game that is a cross between 'Panzer General' and old Avalon Hill games like 'D-Day', 'Russian Campaign', etc. Those that don't like this game probably never played board games, 'Space Invaders' or 'Pong'.

After playing (successfully) games like 'Hearts of Iron' and 'Age of Empires' it is refreshing to have game like this. Sure, the naval and even the air aspects are a little lacking, but who cares!! Its just great to play a game that has enough strategy to keep you interested without the learning curve investment.

Review Page: 1 

Actions