Burden of Command™

Plain and simple, it's just not fun.
I understand the devs reasoning for this kind of gameplay, but the game would have been better served as just a narrative game instead of a narrative then really boring/repetitive "tactical" gameplay.
So, when you shoot your guns, you will almost never get a kill, which the dev says is normal... which I disagree with a lot, but also, the enemy doesn't seem to also fall into that category.
You cannot win any fights, you HAVE you get them to lose all their morale, then you have to RUN YOUR GUYS INTO THE ENEMY TO FORCE THEM TO SURRENDER.
Listen, I get it, war isn't just "Pew pew pew" as he says, but also war isn't just "Everyone misses every bullet so now you need to run up to the enemy and tell them to surrender nicely". I mean, it's not logical, it's not "real world" as the dev states, and its' boring as hell.
The amount of turns I had to wait because my leader sgt and his group wouldn't run over and force a surrender one block away, literally adjacent, and no matter how many times I bolstered, or rallied, my guys were too scared to "rush" (They are literally touching) the machine gun nest. So two turns later they finally rush over the machine gun position.
This is the game, literally, you shoot - make their morale go red, then run your guys up and "Charge them" to force them to surrender. If you try doing any damage or anything with shooting - you will fail.
Now, put that into the weird way the dev is saying he is keeping in some really gruesome photos, because war is gruesome, but then uses AI to.. I guess add color? That isn't it either, almost every photo has something big or small that has changed, which makes me wonder if it's not a copyright type of thing. One of the officers hands was literally long straw like a scarecrow.
If you want a game like this, I would recommend going the route of the game "All Quiet In The Trenches" which is also a narrative game, but the non-narrative part is actually fun. This game here probably would have done better in the WW1 era... where soldiers actually charged each other more, this isn't something that really happens in WW2...

OH! I almost forgot, the game runs terribly. Like seriously, this game has no real graphics, and almost every step they have to take where the game "Calculates" if you are getting blown away by accurate fire that only exists on the enemies side, those calculations can take SO LONG. From counting, it's roughly 5 to 10 seconds long... and before anyone jumps on the whole "Hardware issue" I have a really expensive computer, with the AMD 9800X3D along with the fastest gen 5 m.2s I can get my hands on. and 64GB of RAM. It's not hardware. :P

holy crap the tutorial is a miserable slog. you can see how this game struggled to come up with its concepts and languished in development limbo for so long. it's a lot of thought but into it but not enough clear thinking. i have lots of patience for learning complex systems but the video format is a mixture of self-indulgence of the developer showing off his thinking, which simply isn't necessary - unity of command or grigsby's games convey very very complex design and its philosophy via the UX, pop-up, or by a well-documented manual without constantly intruding and making you listen to the sound of dev's voice.

they could have simply reduced all of these concepts down to a well-written manual, but that would have required a discipline in the production process that i suspect was lacking given the game's long development history. the tutorial is a bewildering mix of pop-ups, video intrusions, and fleeting graphics. i was a big fan of the concept of the game and of paul wang, but as a working adult my time is too precious to spend on a game this self-important. i hope they listen to review feedback and decide to come up with a real tutorial that respect's the player's time and attention.

Great idea two in one package a War game and what is an interesting Novel come R P G, I have really enjoyed playing this game so much and also watching the true Heroes telling me what real War was all about a true Bonus to see. The game it's self is played well for me you have to study the tutelaries and play them a few times then all the new type of play style for this game comes together, I always like to play a new angle on a turn based war game I have now reached quite far into the Campaign and the game seems to run OK for me with no problems so far on my MSI GF75 THIN 95C Laptop about 5 years old by now, obviously there is a lot of hope for future scenarios from other areas of WW2 to look forward too. all in all I RECOMMEND this game for lovers of turn based war games and maybe some R T S players as well should try it too, well done to the develpers on trying new game system it's fresh and works well in my apinion keep inventing.

It is the best VN I have played in years. The tutorial is very painful, though. Besides that, it's the visual novel/RPG of the Band of Brother genre you did not know you needed.

I don't usually leave reviews for games before i finish them nor do I leave reviews that are thought out at all but this game compelled me to do so. Now Ive played a lot of WW2 turn based games and this one does something pretty different. its no where near as complex as one of the Gary Grigsby games but It has a pretty good story. I think that the combat for this game is okay, not amazing but I havent started to fight Germans yet so thats likely why the game feels like "Shoot at enemy until theyre cowering then assault said enemy" and if youre lucky sometimes you shoot a unit and they all just die which can be nice cause if you kill a lieutenant his Units are basically dead in the water. Now id say if you want a purely strategic game you should just go play panzercorp, unit of command, strategic command, strategic mind or any of the other 100 puzzle esq WW2 games.

Now where I think this game really shines is with its story telling, I think it does a very good job at making you feel like youre leading a company. Youre constantly having to deal with little events during missions such as trying to get armored support or trying to get the Damn Navy to stop bombing you and civilians. Ive also had cutscenes happen where all of a sudden a character just gets shot in the middle of a mission and I have to decide between sending my men away to try and keep the soldier alive or keeping the men with me so i have a better chance at winning the scenario. Now there are a few small things that have felt kind of weird like having my character be on the otherside of the map from another character then all of a sudden I get a cutscene where the two are talking or how the enemy tend to be crack shots, I had 4 men get shot down by an italian rifle team 5ish hexes away with bushes and such inbetween them while my guys run from one trenchline to another. I do really think the story telling is quite enjoyable and interactive and I think thats where this shines.

Now an issue ive seen other people have is with the tutorial. I do think the game goes a little far to say theyve reinvented the wheel with how they approach combat. A lot of the mechanics feel very similar to how other games work, I mean its different then other squad based games where each unit acts individually and shoots at enemies and kills them but this game focuses on squad on squad combat and not individual combat. When you play a game like Unity of command you have a tendency to lay fire down on an enemy and then send a unit in to finish them off kind of similar to this though that game requires a lot more Supply management and you tend to win by cutting off supply lines but they focus on different levels of war. sorry a little bit of a ramble. I think if they cut down on a lot of the hand holding in the tutorial then it would make it better cause I do like the bootcamp aspect of the game I think it adds another level of authenticity to the experience. These men would train together before they were deployed and starting at that point is refreshing since typically you're just thrust into the attack on Poland or America landing in Morocco and just run with it from there.

The game is like a choose your own adventure book with a decent strategical game added to it and I quite enjoy how they put it all together. I really do hope they improve on some of the more jank side of things, Units take too long to move around and the game takes too long to calculate attacks and such for a game released in 2025. Im excited to see them add more campaigns, Especially a Pacific one since thats one of my favorite theaters. I think this type of story telling would also work pretty well for a WW1 game which there are a definite lack of when it comes to tactical strategy games. If you read all this well thanks, i guess, Like i said I dont usually write reviews so this probably reads like a bit of a ramble. I think its good and I think its worth a try. 20~25 Bucks is pretty cheap for a WW2 strategy game too, I think all the other ones I listed in here are 40+ bucks other then Unity of Command.

To start, I like this game. I really do. I think there is a lot of promise in it. But right now it needs a lot of work.
The hardness selection screen I think summs everything up. Do you want a story, or a fight?

Unfortunately right now you cant choose. Its all story. The tutorial I'm about 5 hrs in, and still not done. Every other move, breaks into dialog or a how-to. JUST LET ME PLAY THE GAME!!!

I love the stories, honestly. But put them at the end of the mission, or the briefing at the beginning. Dont stop gameplay in the middle. That or if you are going to correct my mistakes, let me redo the mission so I can make sure I've learned what you are trying to teach me. Im sure plenty of folks dont like the stories. So allow them to be turned off. You have that nice selector at the beginning of the game, USE IT as its described.

Another big thing is the whole leader swap control. I'm lost. Maybe its me. But Ive 2 LTs, a Capt and I cant move anything because Im using the wrong leader. Just designate which unit requires which leader, and let me move. That or give me a caution "un played moves" or unplayed leader or soemthing. Im htting turn advance thinking Ill get to the leader I need to be on to action a unit. NOPE Its next turn. WAAAAAA I've lost 2 missions now due to this, trying to get everyone perfect, but cant mesh the leaders to cmd each.

Otherwise some annoying save/quit bugs. I "finished" moved on to a movie, couldn't exit out to shut down my computer. Ended up just killing the program (Yay TaskManager did something for once). EDIT: So picking back up I think it killed the mission briefing. And now Ive no idea what my objectives are. Need a way to be able to replay objectives/briefing/etc.

Also feel like MG & Mortar fire needs to have more casualties. I'm using them every turn. Rarely ever get a kill. Had this group full red suppressed multiple rounds MG, Mortar, & Rifles, go to assault, half my assault team dies. Lose the loyalty bonus for that.

I'm sure Ill edit this as the game goes on. But ya. It needs work.

PS Theres a ton of folks complaining about the price of USD$20. Be happy its not 80. Look at everyone complaining about the new mario switch 2 game pricing. I think 20 is perfect. I picked it up specifically because it was 20.

I don't usually leave reviews but seeing as only a few are needed to help out the game, I don't mind voicing some thoughts. My attraction came primarily from one of the writers on the team, whose other work I've enjoyed, and I am so far not disappointed. My main interest lies, unsurprisingly, in the writing and the characterisation of our Company at large, and the way it interacts with the war. The gameplay is passable, but is elevated by being a vehicle for the story; your 'chance' of succeeding in an assault being related to your unit's morale, which you can follow the rises and falls of and try to learn from them, is a nice twist. Advancing where you think an enemy might have sightlines and elevation is a bad idea, maybe fall back and go around, etc. It's rare that I feel like I'm being punished for no reason. Even in situations where the map and enemy positioning seems to have no real way forward without taking damage, there's usually a way of opening yourself up to better your position if you think about it.

Anything I could directly complain about feeling underutilized in the gameplay element feels like it's just an effect of my playstyle more than anything else. And while yes, the UI's lacking is likely a result of the cost and scope of the development, I would enjoy some kind of indication of which enemy's line of sight I'm heading into when they're effectively on overwatch. It's perfectly possible with guesswork, but not the ideal.

Having played the Demo and now the full game, I can certainly see where people are coming from on their points about the tutorial. The video not 100% relating to what's happening, let alone showing its example in a different scenario; sometimes text in the text box, sometimes text in the image box, sometimes relevant to what's being said, sometimes not. The near first thing you're told is about is the four Fs, but I can't actually remember being told what all of them stood for until I read it on a loading screen tooltip in the middle of Morocco. It feels like it was made at a different stage of development than the finished product—perhaps replacing the videos with new ones, of the same developer going through the actual tutorial itself? Its length is a byproduct of the story and the gameplay being one and the same, but short of divorcing the tutorial and bootcamp into two separate entities, I can't see that changing. For good or ill.

Insofar as that being my biggest issue, it's not much of one personally, since by the end of the early-release Demo, I was already captured and not being dissuaded from seeing the story to fruition. While not everyone who buys the game is going to like it, if some are turned off by what might as well be teething problems, that'd be a shame.

Hopefully that doesn't come off as too 'negative' for a positive review. I like the game, and I love the writing, and I'm satisfied when my platoon storms a bunker and seizes the objective against the odds. I just hope that it helps the devs attract some people who're beyond this niche of interest, or being turned away by that first hurdle.

The tutorial was heavy, but once you get in the mindset that the narrator is trying to put you in - that of a wet-behind-the-ears officer being briefed to lead men into combat - it comes together nicely. I found myself sipping my coffee along with the Lt. and feeling the same nervous anticipation of what was to come during the first briefing.

I'd suggest that if you can't get into the right headspace, to put the game down for a while and come back to it. It tightens up BIG time once you emotionally invest in your role and your men.

I'm glad I stuck with it, and I look back at the tutorial differently than I did when I was playing it.

I picked this game up on launch and agree with other reviewers that the training can be something of a slog. It's a solid 2 hour minimum of videos and tutorials before dropping you into the campaign (but it does cover all the bases and give you a solid foundation before you go into combat in North Africa) but once you pass the training the gameplay really does begin to shine.

The campaign is a mix of a turn-based strategy and a choose-your-own adventure with dialogue between (and frequently during) missions impacting relationships with characters and your tactical choices. Want to send runners to bring up tank support quicker? You'll have your armour early, but you'll be down a squad for the first half of the mission because of it and the other platoon leaders might be unhappy knowing their men have to pick up the slack for it.

Dialogue choices are also decided by your characters doctrine (Essentially their mindset regarding combat I.E, By the book, Cautious, Zealous and aggressive etc) and choices that alter your mental stats. You can be more or less direct, professional and sarcastic which means after a couple of missions of me being a no-humour and relatively quiet officer my dialogue options quite often resorted to bland statements or just the use of body language which is exactly what I wanted, although it did annoy other officers when they would ask a question and I'd nod or point instead of speaking.

Now with regards to the campaign, the first missions can be a tactical nightmare to overcome but a recurring theme in the North Africa campaign in the game, as in real life, is that the US military was not prepared to go to war and had to learn on the fly. Your squads will frequently get pinned and need to be rallied by their officer to advance, they'll move less hexes on their turn and take fewer actions and your officers will struggle to have the actions to engage all their squads on their turns. But as you fight further and further across North Africa you will find your officers developing and your men becoming veterans capable of fighting longer and harder.

Finally, this brings me to the last gameplay feature: Stress and combat fatigue. As you participate in battles and dialogue your character and the other officers will all accumulate combat fatigue. If an officer is assigned to write a letter home regarding some of his dead men or has a harrowing experience in combat then he can gain combat fatigue, this limits the amount of actions he can take unless it is dealt with by resting them, but losing them for their next mission. Stress is a similar feature but more prominent during gameplay as it occurs during battle and not afterwards unlike combat fatigue. As your men are engaged, lead assaults or take casualties they build up stress (stress can also result from killing the enemy instead of forcing them to surrender). Stress makes them less effective and can even result in them flat out refusing dangerous orders. If you have a veteran unit that is tasked with dangerous jobs they will become stressed quickly and the only way to reduce this is to pull them off the line for a mission or two, resulting in you being without some of your best men and down a squad in their next combat.

Overall, despite some minor issues such as the training and some poor quality AI enhancements on some of the images I have very very much enjoyed my time in game so far. The pacing and missions are good and maintaining relationships and the mental and physical health of my squad has been extremely enjoyable also, I'd recommend this to anyone who is a fan of hex or turn based strategy.

I’m giving this game a positive review.

It’s a niche, indie title—definitely not for everyone—but I love the idea of mixing a choose-your-own-adventure style game with a tactical RPG. The mechanics themselves are quite simple, but in my opinion, the UI makes them feel more difficult than they actually are.

The story is a slow burner. While some players complain about the long tutorial, I actually enjoy it and want to experience more. The saving system still annoys me, but I understand that it’s meant to simulate being a leader of soldiers—when you rush in and make a stupid mistake in real life, you can’t just reload. In the meantime ill try to start from the beginnign to grasp the mechanics (also I am a terrible tactician).

Worth a try for sure!"

I played through the demo and actually recommended it to a personal friend for game design things (he was working on a TTRPG wargame and was trying to conceptualize the leader as a independent unit and this game handles that particular concept in a interesting way) and we both came to a similar conclusion of interesting ideas, rough execution. I made it all the way though the demo and walked away optimistic where he tapped out after a bit due to the tutorials not being the greatest.

I came back to full release hoping that the game had seen some needed QOL improvements. It honestly has not from what I can tell. I have to say conceptually I'm interested but the overly long tutorial and honestly lack lustre presentation turns me off. I'm not even talking about graphics to be transparent here. So much of the tooltips and UI feels placeholder and it's strange. Even the settings menu doesn't really work like it should (muting master volume still resulted in very loud unit barks when selected and the videos still played full blast with their very crisp audio).

(TLDR) I genuinely believe a lot of love and effort went into this game. I can tell by the developers response they wanted this to succeed and for people to see their vision. I see the vision but I unfortunately do not see the needed polish to execute, the game feels like there was too many designers coming up with great concepts and not enough programmers to execute if that makes any sense.

I bought the game because I love the interactive fiction written by one of the main writers of this game (go check out Sabres, Guns, and Lords of Infinity). The game-play component is definitely jankey at times but I appreciate that this is an indie studio doing a unique thing. I'm in this for the writing and I'm not disappointed. I think it succeeds at its main goal: making you care about the men you lead and their ultimate fate in the war.

Firstly, thank you and well done to the developers for creating such a fitting tribute to our US allies' soldiers during WWII. I know a labour of love when I see it. It’s a WWII experience as much as it is a game. The use of real veterans' voices adds authenticity.
I remember seeing an intriguing Rock Paper Shotgun article about a game capturing the idea of the burden of command a few years ago, and was surprised to see it release yesterday. I gave the game a chance and, while it isn’t perfect, I’m generally impressed.

This isn’t a game for everyone and I think the developers have been clear about that. It’s a journey into what it means to lead others during warfare, and if you appreciate that, you will likely enjoy the game.

As other reviews have already mentioned, the tutorial approach is marmite. Somehow, it’s both overly long and handholding, yet at the same time fails to get some of the key points across. On the upside, the tutorial feels quite a lot like military basic training, which can be equally confusing and contradictory. It’s easy to think you’ve pressed a command and then left click rather than right click and make a mistake I found. I watched the launch dev stream where he made similar mistakes so this seems to be an issue that could be corrected. Some Of The On Screen Manual Pages That Capitalise The First Letter Of Every Word need rewriting too.

The Field Umpire (or Exercise Directing Staff over here in the UK) did make me smile, I’m sure most veterans have met that special individual during training exercises, “Lt Einstein” indeed, cheeky git. “Train hard, fight easy”, as they say.
The main gameplay loop follows realistic infantry patterns. You can read more about that in the game, but I’ll summarise it as find the enemy, pin them down to reduce their spirit, flank them, finish them up close. Suppressing the enemy along with the rally and bolster commands is more essential than in other similar WWII turn-based games. Line of sight is critical too, but that’s the same across many similar RTS and turn-based military games. Move your squads up together, suppress, flank, (rally if needed) and win the encounter, rinse and repeat.

I do like the ear symbol and notification when an enemy officer is issuing orders nearby, nice touch that.
The game does a good job of driving the need for balance between achieving the task and considering the team. It doesn’t quite create the connection to the individual soldiers that I’d like to have seen. I want to know who my squad are too, have a say in their promotions and understand their lives. Currently, the non-commissioned soldiers feel too expendable. The now very old system of tank crew management and promotion from M1 Tank Platoon has still to be bettered in that regard.

The impact of the junior officers (Lt and Capt) seems somewhat generous. They are all a bit too much Henry V (the original St Crispin Day ‘band of brothers’ speech) as motivators with bolster and rally - especially the Capt. In my experience, a lot of the heavy lifting in terms of the morale and fighting spirit of the men is really the domain of the NCOs (see the film Zulu and role of Colour Sgt Bourne (“And a bayonet, sir, with some guts behind it”) vs the junior officers in charge of the more technical elements of the defence. The written script gives the senior NCOs more credit, but they are oddly absent from the actual gameplay.

Does the game capture the ‘Burden of Command’? Mostly, it does, with the real combat reports, photos and veterans’ video clips adding to the atmosphere. It does have the feel of ‘look after your men and they’ll look after you’. Few modern games manage this, and the team should be congratulated for that.

Slightly janky with a dash of genius is my summary. If you want an experience that is respectful to WWII veterans and is truthful about the cost of warfare, this is it. You’ll need to be a little forgiving of some of the less polished elements of gameplay.

Different, creative, respectful and on the whole enjoyable; for that reason, Burden of Command gets a positive recommendation.

It's been 10 years since I first heard of it... well, it is finally here.

A company sized tactical game, operates closer to a wargame than other turn based games. Scenarios are interesting, and a tad difficult, but not impossible. In any case, is more about surviving through it than completing all of it. I find the combat system quite enjoyable, although the UI doesn't telegraph very well if what I am bout to do is what I actually want to do.

Story so far, good as well, very much on the same tone and topics such as Band of Brothers. I love the fact that it takes a good chunk of it in parts of the conflict that are not overused in games. For now, I'm still playing Op. Torch, but the game will also take place in Italy. I can tell there was an effort to explain certain concepts without overindulging in military terms that might not be so friendly for people not versed on them, neither bloats artificially the narrative. The RPG aspects are quite unique with this theme, and I love it.

Tutorial... well, that was a though pill to swallow, but necesary. Even if you are familiar with the idea, the execution needs to be put in practice with the game mechanics. Of course the training part is an inherent part of the story, and works well in that aspect.

By the art and some mechanical choices, you can tell the game was made by people that is really invested in the project, and knows what they want to convey. Love the coloured photos and portraits, but not so much the sumi-e photoshop filter (that actually for a moment made me think that it was AI generated stuff... and I can't rule it out 100%). Sometimes the game breaks conventions, which is great actually; but sometimes it is just something not directly related to the context. Sometimes, footnotes are other images... well, that's confusing, but I can see where it comes from. There are a couple of explicit images that, while I am not agains't them, they made me think if was that image really necessary in that context. No additional information was conveyed, no tragedy in context... just a bit of gore in a close up.

Also, music and sound, great stuff. Accompanies the text very well, and makes combat quite punchy. Tiles, animations and destruction are great too.

The only thing that really don't like, is how the crucible stuff doesn't relay the information at all. I can get feedback from tooltips when making choices, but I don't have a clear view, at any moment, of where I stand extactly. If something is explained through values and not narration, I should be able to check what is the status at any given time. This can be extended to fatigue and character traits ( sarcasm, direct, verbal, etc.).

By the way. I feel the price is right, as it is now with discount, 19,60€. I would think twice about it if it was just 5€ more.

Also, documentation and references! Great stuff! Thank you!

Overall great indie game. Congrats devs, after all this time, you've made it, and it's very good.

Leaving my first every Steam review to counteract some of the early negativity I'm seeing, particularly given this is an indy developer. This is a game that is greater than the sum of it's parts. It's taking you on a journey, and the bootcamp is part of that (I agree it could be slightly more streamlined, but I found the latter stages very useful to PRACTICE). It's not a save scumming, perfect run kind of game and I'm enjoying that narrative approach.

This game is a very interesting idea. I actually love one of the authors of this game from his days back as a "choose your own adventure" novelist. (shout out to the real ones who know Mecha Ace & Guns of Infinity) but they front-loaded a painfully over-explained tutorial. they make you do the action and then they tell you what it is you just did after. almost an hour in and I have zero plot. at least get me invested on the narrative side before you bombard me with your obtuse game mechanics. I look forward to what this team makes next and I wish them all the best, but this aint it im sorry.

I feel crappy for having to say "don't recommend" as this game does have some good potential, and there's a lot of cool things within that really make you vibe with the setting, the characters, and at times the gameplay. Honestly, it's a really well written game story wise, as you're put in command of a platoon of troops starting first with basic training and moving up from there... but sadly, therein is the problem... the Bootcamp.

I'd love to say the Tutorial was fun and engaging, but it really really wasn't. Half the time you're interrupted by a video from the developer explaining how the game works, which is fine if you weren't already a veteran Hex-based strategy gamer, or just anyone above the age of 10 and below the age of 60. It was jarring, and their warning as you first skip the video is... made me wonder who tested the game cause it was easier to understand the mechanics through just the quick summary text that popped up minus a few keybind commands. But yeah, overall, the bootcamp part is what really made me find the game annoying, as it just kept pulling me out of the immersion. One moment, I'm getting into the head of my character and his unit then BAM suddenly a video comes up with a guy explaining the mechanics which pulls me right out of it. I'd petition to add in a feature to opt out of the videos.

Now, the other part that was... annoying, was how inconsistent the difficulty felt at times, as though you're basically rolling a D20 and landing on nothing but nat 1's all the damn time, while the enemy AI keeps getting nat 20's, completely destroying your force, and further removing any sort of element of fun like other hex and strategy based games. Then, there are options which give you a small bump in either time or some other aspect like an extra machine gun, an artillery bombardment, lower enemy morale (doesn't do anything I found), and remove the fog of war. The latter two are just useless choices. You're presented with a fun script where your officers and NCO's tell you what they found, but once you start the game, you're immediately greeted with no enemy locations on map aside from some hard point hexes (which isn't terrible) but little else. Then, the morale check immediately vanishes once you move a unit up to spot them, rendering your prep time useless.

Overall, I have to say this game is... meh. It's got some really cool elements like the narrative "chose your own adventure" type of thing, but the customization of the OC (you) is just lacking entirely (Can't fit my whole name in there XD) as you're unable to pick much save for 4 avatars, and much the same with your squads. Essentially, I'd recommend waiting until they've FULLY ironed out a lot of the issues. As it stands, the game is quite painful to play through if you have bad luck like me, cause no amount of tactical brilliance will help you unless you're lucky as well in this game XD.

I hate to not recommend this. I had it on my wish list for years and it randomly came out today, but wow is it underwhelming! The tutorial is pretty much over 2 hours if you sit and read everything and watch the little videos that pop up every 3 minutes of game play. Some images look authentic but a lot of them look AI generated. They try to play it off like this is some revolutionary game, which in fairness the concept is a great idea the execution is just not there. I also don't like how they have to reiterate stuff that I think the average gamer and WW2 or war enjoyer should probably already know. You're average Joe isnt tryna pick up this game only the WW2 nerds are. Its really not as RPG as I thought it would be its a simple point and click your units with simple action point mechanics and your officers can order them to do simple things like suppress or move or bolster or rally. The customization of your own character is kind of lack luster you can change your name and have 3 different portraits to choose from. If it was 10 bucks I would recommend it, but for $25 USD (I got it for $20 on sale) Its just not fun and its really boring. I refunded it because I really dont see myself finishing it. TBF I heard that they would be adding different countries you could play for as an infantry officer but who knows, Idk if they used AI or not but im not the only one who has pointed it out in the reviews. Sorry Devs I really wanted to like this but its just not fun or ground breaking like its marketed to be!

I haven't given the game much playtime yet, but so far, I love the mix of "choose your own adventure" and tactical combat.
It really feels like Band of Brothers: the tactical game so far, with its nagging drill sergent.
The tutorial was a bit awkward, though, with a mix of excessive hand holding at times and hazardous decisions to take at other times.
I like how you typically have to choose to favour your soldiers(by playing it safe) or the HQ (by zipping as quickly as possible through the mission). It fees like everything comes at a cost.
You can even piss your instructor off early on in the tutorial by not doing what he is asking and winning an encounter that was scripted to end in a draw by assaulting the enemy position instead of suppressing it first and running out of time.

I'll update the review once I get more time clocked.

I was super intrigued by this but wow. This feels like a TTRPG player just decided to make a video game without ever having played one. The UI/UX is super inconsistent and jarring. In 34 minutes playing, all that happened was I got like 100 tutorials in a row on how to move units, same info being constantly repeated at you. There are in-game tool tip tutorials that were totally sufficient, but the game then also cuts away to full screen dialogue with random historical images shown to you while the game goes on and on about very simple mechanics. The game explains grids, action points, units, etc. to you as if they are all radical new concepts never before seen in tactical turn based games and over and over. 95% of the gameplay was just clicking through tutorial dialogue. The tutorial was also very buggy, you could do as you pleased but the game would just assume what actions you had taken and give you story dialogue related to it. There are also constantly these videos played where the Lead Designer goes on and on about these "game design" features while verbosely explaining very standard turn based tactical game mechanics like movement, abilities, action points, terrain, etc. Seemingly no way to undo actions once you queue them.

Also for a game that seems to be very focused on narrative and immersion, the choice of random historical items that are completely out of time and place is just very very weird (tutorial takes place in Virginia in 1942, you are fighting free french troops, your "kitchen squad's" leader is a FSSF guy from Italy 1944, very routinely you get shown images from WW1 instead of contemporary ones).

Honestly, it could just be the tutorial that is so jarring and messed up, full of these random pop up videos and weird dialogue, I could probably tolerate the weird UI, but the first 30 minutes just left such a bad impression I just can't go for this. You also constantly get dialogue and pop ups telling you the videos were well liked and recommended by playtesters which just seems like the lead designer is a narcissist trying to justify including them because there is no way anyone thinks constantly having autoplaying videos pop up where he agonizingly slowly describes basic game features is a good addition.