Posted on: July 29, 2021
riffbw
Verified ownerGames: 75 Reviews: 3
A step forward and a step backwards
PG2 bridged the gap between a large scale macro wargame with intricate tactics without being squad based. PG3 tried to scale the game down again and lost the spirit of what makes the general series great. But I like this game. Where this game really shined and failed for me is in the commanders. Instead of simply recruiting units, you recruits commanders and give them units to control. You are limited on the number of slots available and higher level commanders can take up mutliple slots. There are times when you will upgrade a commander through a battlefield objective and he costs an extra slot permanently. The margin for error is razor thin when it comes to having enough units on the map vs upgraded commanders. Weak commanders feel like they are not contributing enough and you are too limited on their actions, while upgraded commanders give you plenty they can do, but cannot cover enough area. I want my powerful commanders that I need to protect, but I also want more unit slots that feel like they contribute. The game generally rehashes the campaigns from PG2 while attributing them to name generals. It's a nice rework to the classic WW2 storyline. I'm giving this a 3/5 because PG2 was only a 4/5 and this isn't on the same level. It's a good game and well worth your time, but it fails to live up to its predecessor in almost every way. It's a fun experiment in 3d wargaming, but the formula didn't lend itslef to long term success. There's a reason why future games went back to the PG2 formula.
Is this helpful to you?
