Mixed or average reviews- based on 48 Ratings
Oct 24, 2012I initially really liked this game. Had some great combat and supply mechanics and had I reviewed it straight away I would of given it a 9 for sure. But the campaign progression is just broken. I enjoyed going through from scenario to scenario up until it just stopped. Then you're forced to redo the earlier missions (to perfection it seems) and 1 round of random bad weather means you get to experience it all again and again and AGAIN! I don't understand how someone could of thought retrying the same mission with such impossible objectives over and over could be fun. Way to completely screw up an otherwise great game.… Full Review »
Mar 2, 2012Playing Unity of Command since beta test. I am very pleased with this game. Design, artificial intelligence and user interface are the best I've seen among turn based wargames. Research and gameplay are really good also, and I wonder how such small independent studio (two guys basically!!) made such solid, stable and interesting game that is suitable for newcomers and veterans of wargaming. But yeah, nobody is perfect, so better multiplayer system and ability to undo last move would make Unity of Command even better. The good thing is that actually developers actively support their game so we can expect more ecxiting news in future.… Full Review »
Aug 24, 2013Unity of Command appears to be a serious effort to kill off what little interest remains in strategic war games. It gets lots of high review scores from 'professional reviewers', who all seem to agree that this game depicts Operation Barbarossa, the German invasion of the USSR in 1941. Too bad for them this game is based on Fall Blau, later renamed Operation Braunsweig, the 1942 summer offensive towards the Southern Soviet oil fields. The critics also get the score of this game as muddled as their history. Unity of Command is a TERRIBLE game with an incredibly limited, linear and boring scenario. The player has almost zero control of units, formations or anything else. The combat is simplicistic to the point of being asanine. It looks and feels like a game of checkers. Units move with ridiculous fluidity to instant-resolve 'fights' that appear to be simply mathmatically randomised results. The maps are PATHETIC, lacking detail or even visual appeal. Unit cards are even worse. The UI is cluttered and confusing and the manual for the game is not existing. Frankly at $7 you would be better off getting an expensive coffeee than wasting your time that was obviously built as your standard Steam scam, a game that offers a cutesy little video offering to get your interest. Comes with an inflated user score created by the scam artists themsellves with false metacritic accounts, then sold to the unsuspecting Steam buyer on the back of your standard 'see no evil' speak no evil' "pro" reviews. You can believe me because I don't lie to you. This is worse than mediocre. It might be worth $2 for a masochist. You will have much more fun playing Hearts of Iron 3, if you want to play a Wargame.Or try Panzer General 3, which is at least passably fun. The Paradox development team are trying to make a serious and historic and viable war game. This is a pathetic amateursville shadow of a war game.
THE GROT REVIEW CRITERIA: After a long time writing reviews like an anus, think its time to set a few bad habits straight: Stop insulting designers. Show some respect for the design process and getting games in circulation. Hence (1) No Red scores. (2) Game scores as follows: Bad Game 5/10. Poor Game 6/10. Mediocre Game: 7/10. Good Game 8/10. Great game 9/10. Stella Game 10/10. To get 10/10 it must be a game that can be (theoretically) play-able for 1000+ hours. Not only great but near endless fun. Games may be bad or poor but making them should earn respect. Thus even the worst POS will still be a 5/10. 0/10 no longer exists in my vocabulary. Yellow is the new red. For the sake of accountability: you can reply if needed: Orctowngrot: Tim Rawlins: email@example.com… Full Review »