Sudden Strike 4

I've heard lots about this isn't Sudden Strike as it was and to be fair I think we would all be a little disappointed if nothing changed, fans like myself would soon get bored. l have always thought that the game was originally named very badly, there was never anything particularly sudden about it, "The depth has gone in SS4" I hear, if depth means sneaking around with a sniper taking out all the gun crews and then mopping up with Tanks, Armoured Cars and APC's then that depth is pretty shallow in all honesty. Certainly SS4 is different to its predecessors but I have still found it to be testing, it is a good combination of the old tactical style and arcade play, despite what people have said in other reviews the maps are large, they just feel smaller because areas open up as the battle/mission progresses bring new factors into play. What still remains that makes it Sudden Strike for me is one bad tactical move and half your force is taken out by un-scouted artillery or heavy machine gun fire, you still have to be very careful as with the original games it is not very forgiving. Graphically the game looks the best it ever has and the overall game play is entertaining and a little frustrating at times which is just as it should be for a game of this nature, I have not encounter any particularly bad pathing of units which all is too common in other games, I'm sure we are all familiar with shouting at the screen "What you going that way for, stupid units!" so refreshing not doing this for a change. I really like the 3 star achievement system and as a completionist this appeals to me particularly with the extra options for obtaining all three, this does not impeded on the game though as it does not appeal to everyone. Sadly MP leaves a lot to be desired with a lack of map variety and number of maps, hopefully this will change with time fingers crossed. Overall SS4 is a good addition to any tactical game fan collection.

Being new to the series and loving history. This game has been an enjoyable experience. Been playing mostly the german campaign now and enjoying the extra content from it. The game handles quite well and I haven't run into any glitches and bugs yet. I have noticed the pathfinder is a bit clunky and some of the units doesn't always turn quite the way you think. That is the only thing to complain about single player. Been trying to play couple of matches with a friend and we feel the multiplayer is really for 4 or more players. two player matchups makes the game feel like running around in circles chasing each other and capping flags and trainsstations. Would have liked the option to choose induvidual infantry units as well,instead of waiting to get halftrack with units or paratroppers. ONE wierd thing is the day one dlc Kursk map was only available on singleplayer skrimishes with the AI. If you didn't pre order then it look like you can never get the map. expect from pirating it. I would say this is a bad move by the devs. If you like somthing simular to this game I can recommend Men of war series or the earlyer entries in this series.

If you new to the series you might find single players isn't that bad however it isn't that great. If you are Sudden Strikes series fan prepare to get disappoint. Maps do not provide feeling of large or strategic battles like it was in SS1 or SS2. Gameplay isn't as hardcore as it was and more of the tank rush. Overall even disappointing Blitzkrieg 3 can offer better single player and at cheaper price tag. Multiplayer is where things got really bad. As if work on it were given to few interns that never played PC RTS, so they designing it for people with disabilities, here would be good place to put PS4 joke, but it's so bad that even calling it console RTS is insulting to PS4. So yeah people who were working on it probably never played anything pass mobile games. Only way that multiplayer got thru is because leads of those interns were too busy spending money that they got from preorders on women and medicine powder. Server browser UI usability is worse I have seen for a long time. It's just basic list of host names locked behind regions, FFS we don't want regions, we want to see ping and not only host ping but other players ping, no one wants to play with lag. What worse it doesn't tell you which map is hosted, how many players in lobby and there is no global chat. All there is host name. There is only FIVE maps one of which comes only with pre order. Map design similar to mobile MOBA games. Even in comparison to single player maps, those MP maps are just symmetrical simple pile of laziness where DoW3 maps look like masterpiece. Unit versatility in multiplayer doesn't exist. There is -Medium Tank, like most generic T-34/76, M4A4 Sherman and Pz4 G. You wont see any other medium tanks in multiplayer. -Light Vehicle which basically scout unit -Half-track with Infantry squad which is completely useless since everything else is armor and they don't have any weapons to deal with it. And for scouting it's cheaper to use scout plane. But wait those interns had "brilliant idea" to block some portions of map where only infantry can get to fight with their sticks. SPG AA truck mainly used to murder infantry Repair and Resupply track that do to casual nature of game are completely worthless. One of them is more than enough for team, but too bad you aren't able to share them making them completely not cost effective and waste. And based on your doctrine you get one additional unit which can be Heavy Tank, Heavy Tank Destroyer or Half-track with infantry that finally have one anti tank weapon, but you rather have tank for it price. Is this WW2 RTS or some Clash of "Insert Name" for phone? Even CoH2 unit options blow this game out. When here we talking about Sudden Strike that should be providing unit park as big as games like Men of War. Is one medium tank per faction all they were able to make? Where is anti tank guns? Where are all tank destroyer options? Where better infantry options? If you thinking Blitzkrieg 3 skirmish gameplay is bad, well Sudden Strike 4 going to amaze you even more on how developers can fail. Visuals Visually game isn't really standing out. Environment and vehicle visuals aren't bad, infantry models on other hand are done very cheaply. Performance I didn't experienced FPS drops, what I did get instead is lag even when playing skirmish vs AI in single player as if it was multiplayer game against someone with 700 ping with sometimes it being completely stuck in the lag with only possible way to finish game is quit. Overall I can't call this game Sudden Strike, it's name used there only for false advertisement for cheap money grab.

One can describe this as: “casual but fun” or “casual *and* fun”. I could go after the unrealistically short spotting (and firing) distance, or how you can cheese most situation by scouting with a rifleman and then shelling them with artillery. But instead, I just choose to enjoy the skirmishes and pretty graphics. https://pixelloot.com

Big disappointment, considering how good the first two games were! I'd rather take the old graphics but a full game than what feels like a rushed, amateurishly made game with one game-mode and 5 maps. I have not yet played any of the 3 campaigns, because I got tilted by how bad it was. So that is why I give it 2 and not 1, because there are more campaign missions, at least, than the amount of games you will want to play in the, bad, laggy multiplayer. It could have been okay if they would have marketed it as a game focusing on story and campaign, but it is way too short for that. You could get SS4 for its campaign, as of now, if at a VERY discounted price, and hopefully with enough modding by the community it might turn out to become a decent game, if not everybody abandons it before...