Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Yes, I have to agree with that assessment, and the steep learning curve. I'm still working my way through the tutorials, and having some fun since history is a big interest for me. Good review.
It was no understatement, that armchair generals and all-round strategy enthusiasts have no reason not to enjoy what they’re seeing and controlling in Steel Division: Normandy 44. Any game which features a well structured tutorial along with Achievements for going the extra mile in those training missions, is quite certainly a sign of complexity which goes far beyond “build this barracks and watch soldiers popping from it”. Steel Division, along with Sudden Strike and Blitzkrieg series, are what I like regarding as “hardcore WW2 RTS” titles. No base management whatsoever. Instead, players can focus on the battles and the tactics that transcend the clichés of a rock–paper–scissors unit organization by perceived strengths & weaknesses.