While it does have a few shortcomings (mostly in the pacing), Wargaming.net really has a lot to build on with Order of War, and I would be thrilled to see a follow up -- perhaps even one taking place in the Pacific Theatre.

While you won't find much innovation, Order of War is a well crafted RTS game. The lack of satisfying multiplayer is disappointing but the single player game is rewarding enough to keep you coming back for more.

Great mechanics and a beautiful presentation make Order of War shine brightly among some incredible WWII strategy games. Anyone who enjoys the genre should give this one a shot.

Order of War is a good game. Not a great game, but a good one. It doesn't bring anything revolutionary to the table, but it still offers a fun, quick and friendly romp into war-torn Europe.

Hardened RTS players may feel a little disappointed by the relative simplicity of the title and the fact that even on the hard difficulty level it isn't as challenging as many other RTS games. But for the average user, it is perfectly pitched.

Competent WW2 -version of World in Conflict, camera controls could use some extra freedom. But when gameplay is simplified, it must be compensated with gorgeous graphics and interesting story, as WiC did. And Order of War is truly lame name. [Nov 2010]

This isn't a bad strategy game by any measure – it delivers some solid missions, along with cinematic action and decent graphical performance. But after so many games using World War II as a setting, more of a personal connection to the narrative of the time would have been nice.

Maybe is not the deepest RTS in the market, but Order of War is definitely capable of performing great graphics and a nice gameplay.

Order of War isn't a bad game, it's just not a very good game for the typical PC RTS gamer.

Order of War is due to lack of tactical options rather an interactive history lesson, than a challenging strategy game.

The strange thing about this game is that despite of the positive picture i had from this game, it wouldn't keep it that way while playing it. The game does a lot of things very well, for sure. De presentation is very well done, the graphics are top-notch, the gameplay is entertaining and the mission structure is cleverly made. But it misses something. Maybe it's because the game does nothing new and the multiplayer is boring after a while. For the fans of the genre and people who wants to try out a RTS, it's an almost instant buy. But don't expect to play it for a long time.

Although Order of War is not an innovative game, it is indeed a good option for fans of strategy, specially the ones who like World War Two.

Order of War is a polished real strategy game with a well optimized engine and some fun missions but It has no innovations, trying to be good both for rts fans and newbies without satisfying any of them.

Although Squaresoft games has developed really good games, this one is the one to be better ignored. The reason to play it longer than a few hours is simply missing, even if there are three playable fractions.

Order of War is a mere copycat game. It feels, looks and plays like World in Conflict – only with dulled out WW2 missions and a lack of strategic depth. Not a bad RTS, but a popcorn RTS.

Order of War is a solid RTS. It's not particularly innovating but it's simple to learn, and difficult to master really fun alone or with a couple of friends.

Order of War does little to justify a purchase above the likes of CoH or Dawn of War II. The campaign modes are light on depth, and most seasoned players will breeze through before heading back to the heavy-hitters.

How much fun you'll derive from Order of War entirely depends what you are looking for in a strategy game.

Order of War offers enough challenge to satisfy the purists, but it's also surprisingly inviting for newcomers. The World War II-setting is used very well and the cinematic perspective makes for a great addition. The graphics are disappointing though, and there are tons of little nags that start to irritate after some time.

Order of War is not a revolution in this genre, but at least is a fun game that will appeal to RTS fans and WW2 lovers.

This simple real-time strategy game isn't original, but it's a lot of fun.

It's almost arcade-like, perhaps appealing more strongly to FPS players looking for a change of pace than the average RTS player.

Order of War is like a popcorn war: fast and tasty, a nice little snack, but not a full meal. It's too easy for veterans and not impressive enough for casual gamers. But if you are looking for occasional fast battles, it's a good choice. It won't get less complicated than this.

Order of War doesn't require superhuman reflexes, leaving you enough time to plan your strategy, type a message in the text chat window, play about with the "cinematic camera" and so on. It looks like nobody at Wargaming believed in the multiplayer mode, but in the end it is more compelling than the single-player campaigns. All in all, Order of War is an outlet for experienced players and an object of derision for juvenile "hardcore gamers".

A nicely packed RTS game based on WW2, paying great details to hystorical events and reconstruction. A solid, easy to master, fast-paced and yet tactically deep gameplay does not though suffice to raise this title above the others, due to some technical flaws and the lack of variety in missions and troops at your command.

You have to be ready to put some effort into liking Order of War. The things you would logically try first are the worst of what it has to offer. It's not really as deep as World in Conflict or Company of Heroes, but it does simple strategy decently well, and looks good doing it.

Order of War does little to justify a purchase above the likes of the truly great recent RTS efforts out there, giving gamers a short distraction before returning to the big guns of the genre.

Overall, Order of War asks consumers to forgive quite a few major gameplay errors in favor of a $10 price cut from the PC standard MSRP. This is a game that will be a tough sell for anybody who is a veteran of real-time strategy games, but it's not entirely bad. The right type of gamer (RTS newcomer/casual tactician) will be able to have some fun with it.

The one aspect that raises its head slightly above 'ordinary', and ventures into 'quite good, actually' territory is the Campaign mission design, which is both varied and well-balanced. [Dec 2009, p.125]

A sweeping but imperfect RTS. One for casual gamers only. [Issue#26, p.47]

Minimum game, maximum animations. The fierce contest of nice-looking but rather unplayable real time strategies has its winner. [Nov 2009]

It's not a game for the ages but it is a reasonable introduction to real-time strategy for action fans.

In the end, Order of War is a typical World War II RTS through and through. It does what its supposed to do, namely provide two campaigns and some skirmish play, but that's about it.

Boring combat. [Jan 2010, p.76]

Although there's no small amount of ambition on display, It's readily apparent that limited production values and adherence to tried-and-true methods cause Order of War to fall short of its target.

As good as the game looks, this is a setting that is so familiar that you can't just give the player a bunch of 20 minute tank battles and call it a day. Not when Relic has experimented with resource capture zones and static defenses in Company of Heroes.

In a post-WIC world, it's hard to consider this much more than average. [Dec 2009, p.60]