Home Archive Forum About

Strategic Command: European Theater

by Peter D. Pawelek

Article Type: Review
Article Date: October 02, 2002

Product Info

Product Name: Strategic Command: European Theatre
Category: Turn-based Strategy / Wargame
Developer: Fury Software
Publisher: Battlefront Games
Release Date: Released
Sys. Specs: Click Here
Files & Links: Click Here

* * *



Promises, Promises

The initial demo of Strategic Command, which I previewed in a previous article, had me eagerly awaiting the full game. The computer wargaming scene had sorely been lacking a grand strategic game in recent years (Avalon Hills Computer Third Reich being the last, flawed attempt) and I was intrigued at the possibilities that Strategic Command had to offer. Unfortunately, the aspects of the demo that I found praiseworthy were not sufficient to make Strategic Command the grand strategic panacea that weve all been waiting for.

Splash screen.

Strategic Command is a turn-based strategic-level strategy game in which players assume the roles of the major powers of the Second World War, either as Axis or Allies. The game is played on map of Europe, Russia, and North Africa over which a hexgrid has been superimposed. Each hex is 50 miles across, and turns comprise a week of game time in Summer, 2 weeks in Fall and Spring, and 1 month in Winter. Players control units that are on the scale of army groups, corps, and tank groups, as well as air fleets, individual ships and U-boat patrols.



MPP's Make the World Go Round

As one would expect for a WWII grand-strategy game, production plays an important part. Each turn, players collect MPPs (Military Production Points) depending on how many strategic assets, cities and ports they control on the map. In addition, conquering an enemy country results in a one-time MPP bonus and this certainly gives the Axis player early incentive to gobble up as many small countries as possible before having to contend with the major powers. In this sense, Strategic Command does a nice job of simulating the early days of WWII when the Axis were on the offensive.

Unit purchase screen.

However, the magical MPP currency of the game, which can be used for everything from researching technology to amphibiously transporting units to rebuilding understrength forces, completely skews the game with its abstractness and causes some serious problems which I'll touch upon in this review.



Hitting the Books

One admittedly interesting aspect of the game is its research tree. Players can expend MPPs to get edges in offensive or defensive technologies which are complementary. For example, when one player is researching heavy bombers, his opponent may be researching anti-aircraft radar. Therefore, these advantages are relative and if your opponent is researching offensive technologies in similar areas, parity will be reached and more MPP's will have to be spent to get superiority in that particular area.

Research screen.

Also, you will not instantaneously reap the benefits of research: an initial MPP investment may take many turns before it materializes as a technological benefit. Its therefore a good idea to formulate a research plan early in the game and stick to it. Once again, this nicely mirrors historical reality.



Rock, Scissors, Paper: Game Mechanics For Dummies

The game mechanics are somewhat strange and take some getting used to. You can only move and attack with one ground unit at a time. You move the unit, and then have one chance to attack with it. If you move the unit and then go on to move another unit, you cant go back and attack with the first unit. This is really annoying since its counter-intuitive to most wargames where you normally move all your units and then launch attacks. I cant count the number of times that Ive blown a good chance at launching a crucial attack because of this. There is an undo feature, but it only allows you to take back a move immediately after its made. Once you go on to the next unit, you lose the chance to undo.

As an added annoyance, this system also prevents you from launching co-ordinated attacks across a front using multiple corps or army groups. In addition to conventional movement, you can expend MPPs to move units operationally over much greater distances. As long as you have the MPPs, you can move as many units as you want operationally. Rail capacity? Whats that? Just show me the money. Cha-ching!

Game report screen.

Another strange aspect of the game mechanics is that you cannot stack units: a density of exactly one unit per hex is allowed. This, of course, is absurd since it means that only a single corps is allowed to occupy a hex which encompasses about a sixth of the area of Denmark. Also, in the strange world of Strategic Command, a corps occupies as much area as an army group and an air fleet will prevent a ground unit from co-inhabiting its hex. Needless to say, the game does not accurately reflect historical unit frontages.



Norwegian Zombies and Other Oddities

Each unit possesses a number of strength points, and they will lose strength points as a result of combat. If a unit loses its last strength point its removed from play (but can come back later in the game as reinforcements after you expend a number of MPPs to revive it). If such a unit is located on a city or port, it will regenerate its strength points. This can result in frustrations as well, since a unit can be completely surrounded and down to one strength point but if it survives will miraculously be back to 100 percent strength the following turn. I found that this can make it extremely difficult to finish off enemy countries when playing the Axis.

Its true that there were some very famous sieges during the war, but when it takes the equivalent of a game-year to besiege Oslo because the Norwegian army keeps popping up in town looking like zombies out of Night of the Living Dead, you know theres a problem (and this actually happened in one game I played). Also, although a major city or strategic resource hex can be completely surrounded by the enemy the controlling player will still accrue MPPs from it. Theres hardly any consideration of realistic supply lines in this game.

Naval movement.

Air combat is handled in much the same way as ground combat. Air units lose strength points until theyre destroyed. In contrast to ground combat, however, air units can intercept other air units and a single sortie can result in a complicated chain reaction of interceptions and counter-interceptions. Air units are very effective for softening up enemy ground units before a major offensive as well as for destroying enemy naval units within range.



Beam Me Up Scotty. Oh, and that Army Group Too, While You're At It...

Amphibious assaults play a big role in a game like this. In Strategic Command, this aspect is handled a bit too abstractly. If a unit is adjacent to a port, the controlling player can expend MPPs which will cause transports to magically appear, allowing it to travel across sea hexes and land on enemy shores. While this system is simple and fun to play, its shockingly ahistorical. One of the biggest sore points for both the Allied and Axis powers in the early parts of the war were the lack of troop transports for amphibious invasions. This is one of the factors that delayed the invasion of France until 1944, and its also one of the factors that caused Hitler to abandon his plans for Operation Sealion (the invasion of England). In Strategic Command, however, getting Rommels army groups across the English Channel is as simple as making the in-game equivalent of a credit-card transaction. Cha-ching!



It's Only Fun Until Someone Pokes an Eye Out

Aside from the bizarre game mechanics, Strategic Command suffers from some major design assumptions that once again defy historical reality. For example, as soon as the Soviet Union declares war on Germany, Finland will declare war on the Soviet Union. Why? Theres no good reason, after all. In reality, the Finns bore a serious grudge against the Soviets after their ill-fated Winter War against the Finns in 1939. In Strategic Command there is no Winter War between the Finns and the Soviets, and therefore no reason why the Finns should declare war against the Soviets in the game. Also, in a number of games in which I played the Axis, if I did not follow the historical sequence of events and invade the Low Countries early enough, the French would invade the Low Countries as a prelude to advancing into Germany! However, my biggest beef has to do with the Soviet Union.

If I invade the Soviet Union very early on in the game, say 1939 or 1940, Im suddenly faced with a massive force of Soviet ground units that immediately converge on Berlin as fast as their felt-lined booties will carry them. On top of that, the Soviets get a whopping MPP allowance every turn as soon as they enter play. In actuality, Stalin tried to postpone hostilities with Germany until at least 1942 because his armies were woefully unprepared (as they were when Germany invaded in June 1941). You wouldnt guess that from playing Strategic Command. It also took a massive logistical and heroic effort to transport much of Russias industrial capacity to the Urals in the early days of Barbarossa, but that isnt reflected at all in the game. Nope, from the very beginning the Soviets get a whopping 450 MPPs every week. Cha-ching!

The Soviet juggernaut in 1939.

North Africa is essentially irrelevant in this game. First of all, only a narrow strip of North Africa is playable on the map which prevents the sweeping maneuver warfare that actually occurred there. Also, the strategic importance of controlling Alexandria and the Suez Canal is minimal. If the Allies lose these assets, (or Gibraltar for that matter) theyll hardly notice it.

Naval movment and combat also suffers from over-simplification. U-boats are particularly vulnerable to enemy naval attack. If they dont survive by diving away from their attackers, theyre as good as fried. This results in a continuous game of cat-and-mouse between U-boat fleets and enemy naval interceptors which on the one hand is historically accurate, but the absolute vulnerability of U-boats really prevents them from wreaking havoc on enemy convoys as they actually did in the Battle of the Atlantic.

Is there anything I like about Strategic Command? Sure! The AI is implemented very well and will provide you with a great challenge in a single-player game. Awkwardness of game mechanics aside, the game does have a fast pace and gameplay is highly addictive once you get over how artificial the whole thing is. Also, the game is being actively supported by its designer and publisher, and major patches have been released on a regular basis since its release (theyre now up to version 1.04).



Lighten Up, It's Only a Game!

I know a lot of you are probably reading this and saying, Oh lighten up, its just meant to be a fun beer-'n'pretzels game. This is true, but even for a light wargame, I expect it to result in historically plausible situations. When the French start invading the Low Countries and I have to worry about Berlin being overrun by the Soviets in 1941, I just shake my head and reach for the Quit button.

Frankly, I have more fun playing Axis and Allies or Panzer General than this. Why? Because Strategic Command had the potential to be so much more. If the game mechanics were tweaked and a bit more thought went into design decisions that accurately reflected historical context, we would have had the true successor to Third Reich and Clash of Steel. As it stands, Strategic Command is nothing more than a glorified version of Risk and we wargamers deserve better!





Resources

 Articles:

Files:

Official Sites:

Related Titles:
The following links will take you to some "abandoned" wargames you can download. Thanks to "Underdogs".





 Printer Friendly

© 2014 COMBATSIM.COM - All Rights Reserved