Burden of Command review (part 2)

A lot has happened in the three days since I wrote part 1 of this review. I’ve led Nickel Company through the living hell that was Anzio. I’ve discovered that BoC’s combat system doesn’t always protect main characters from fatal wounds. I’ve realised there’s one aspect of the game’s core mechanics I really don’t like. I’ve experienced a crash. I’ve found myself pleasantly surprised by GTG’s approach to pricing. Most significantly, I’m now happy to use the word ‘unmissable’ in connection with Burden of Command.

The more I play BoC, the more minor bugs and design flaws I notice, yet the deeper my affection and respect for this improbably honest wargame gets. Constantly referencing Band of Brothers in early interviews and publicity material was a risky PR strategy, but, in the light of what I’ve experienced thus far, I now consider that name-checking wholly justified. Luke Hughes’ brainchild startles and confronts in a very similar manner to HBO’s groundbreaking miniseries. It de-glorifies war with the same grim vigour.

No computer game has ever communicated the brutality and mundanity of conflict this well before. No game has ever done a better job of illustrating the simultaneous solidification and enervation military units experience when exposed to combat for prolonged periods. Towards the end of the appropriately gruelling Anzio mission sequence, for the first time in the campaign, I found myself grabbing opportunities to cut short and avoid engagements, even if that meant hemorrhaging ‘prestige’, and questioning or disobeying direct orders. Because my depleted and traumatised squads and platoon leaders had plainly had enough. I asked them to do the bare minimum, sometimes not even that. Nickel Company survived their Italian ordeal, but, scanning a squad screen liberally dotted with red combat fatigue masks prior to their next test, I wonder if I’ve merely delayed a crisis.

While the German forces I’ve encountered since Tuesday have proved much tougher adversaries than the Italians and Vichy French, most of that increased challenge is down to the greater experience, higher morale, and better weaponry and leadership of their units rather than behavioral differences. As most pre-Dragoon missions understandably cast the Axis as either stubborn static defenders or disciplined retreaters – roles it copes with admirably – assessing the quality of BoC’s script-reliant* AI is a trifle tricky. Judging by the handful of counteroffensives I’ve faced thus far, given sufficient manpower, sympathetic terrain, and decent scripting, foes have what it takes to mount effective attacks.

* Presumably.

Ever-present personnel concerns, varied venues and victory conditions, and numerous scripted twists and IF interjections, ensure a campaign dominated by ‘push forward across map shrouded with FoW ’-type missions never becomes monotonous. For every ‘take this town’ or ‘silence those guns’ task, there’s usually at least one quirkier objective. For example, yesterday evening I found myself trying to figure out a way to safely dig-in two Sherman tanks under the noses of entrenched ‘krauts’ almost certainly equipped with Panzerschrecks.

When you reach the Italian mainland, the number of AFVs in scenarios tends to increase, and, in consequence, one of BoC’s less successful bits of tactical shorthand becomes more noticeable. Because units, be they infantry squads, weapon teams, or individual vehicles, can’t share hexes, and potentially, can be brought to unplanned halts by incoming fire, tanks must bypass hexes occupied by friendly units like MG and bazooka teams. Occasionally, this limitation creates annoying tile puzzle situations where you’re forced to waste order dots repositioning obstructive units.

And while I’m griping, build quality and performance could be better too. In addition to that one-off crash mentioned in the intro (which, happily, didn’t have serious repercussions), I’ve experienced several distracting if inconsequential bugs including a platoon leader briefly returning from the dead to participate in an IF conversation. It’s hard to know whether the slight delays during tactical play are intentional tension magnifiers or unintentional consequences of an over-stretched game engine (the sluggish way the game shuts down suggests it might be the latter). Either way, they contribute to an idiosyncratic vibe which, along with that heavy-handed tutorial, probably won’t help BoC turn fence-sitting trialists into paying customers.

I get the impression some Cornerites tried the demo and thought ‘Interesting concept, but I’m not sure this is for me’. To such doubters I’d say this. Over the last couple of weeks, Burden of Command has got under my skin and into my head in a way no wargame (or war game for that matter) has ever managed. Despite being an incorrigible campaign abandoner, it’s inconceivable I’ll turn my back on Nickel Company before VE Day.

(to be continued)