FULL REVIEW: SGS Korean War

[Two Clicks]

RANKING:

AVOID | LACKING | MAYBE | WORTHWHILE | COMPELLING | UNMISSABLE

SYNOPSIS:

WHAT TO EXPECT:

SGS Korean War (SKW) is another instalment in the series of historically tilted wargames from Strategy Game Studio/Avalon Digital. An operational level strategy game that is turn-based, it depicts one the major 'hot' conflicts of the Cold War from 1950 to 1953. Players take command of one of two factions (Communist States vs United Nations) controlling elements of army and air forces across historically themed campaigns and operations. Gameplay is influenced from military board games. Sides vie for Victory Points by controlling key locations, amongst other factors. Solo and various PvP modes are supported

STATUS:	Released the engine is now fairly mature, but the content is supported with periodic hotfixes
AUDIENCE:	Strictly for fans of historically accurate, operational level wargames with a mostly rigid scenario set-up and outcome
VALUE FOR MONEY:	The price is slightly high, and a sale is definitely in order given the repetitive nature of gameplay and some overlapping scenarios

More info below....

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2943131879

KEY ATTRIBUTES:

THE GOOD:	▲ Simulates the forgotten conflict from Cold War of the previous century. One with a balance between technologically fewer forces versus inferior quality, but with higher numbers ▲ 11x historically important scenarios from the complete conflict, to shorter campaigns and small-scale operations that overlap each other ▲ Incorporates an operational level battle system with many factors of warfare across a host of turn-based phases ▲ Simulated warfare that includes: land and air combat, air cover, amphibious landings, fortifications, minefields, HQs, logistics, artillery fire, reinforcements, replacements, city sieges, breakthroughs and pursuits ▲ Detailed, accurate, historical regimental level orders of battle, with a few other battalion sized army units. Air forces are modelled at the squadron level ▲ Range of cards affecting modifiers across operational, tactical, military, air force, political and economic factors of the conflict ▲ Audiovisuals are pleasant for a wargame, colourful and informative ▲ Includes a large selection of themed playable cards that can be played during various phases that affect sieges, combat, logistics, VP score, build trenches, minefields or obstacles, amongst other strategic effects
THE BAD:	▼ Complex. Takes time to learn gameplay & mechanics, unless one has previous exposure to franchise ▼ A rigid design results in historically structured gameplay that tends to lead to a contrived outcome ▼ AI can leave locations in a defensive line blank. It can use AAA to attack or send in kamikaze attacks with badly matched forces ▼ No leaders assignment to formations ▼ There is no undo (move) function ▼ Some reinforcements can come into play in far locations were they won't make the frontline before the scenario finishes ▼ The formation widget can be fiddly to use Reorganisation of formations can be tricky and time consuming ▼ Using the next unit button does not automatically bring up details on the unit track ▼ Using the next unit button does not automatically bring up their details on the unit track ▼ Un-manned enemy trench systems can defeat armed units because the engine uses the battle system rather than give it an auto-defeat ▼ Some events/cards lead to a premature endgame in the main campaign(s) and should be optional or bypassed to allow full completion ▼ Invalid actions on the map lack feedback and are not clearly communicated onscreen ▼ Plotting a course through the map for a unit can sometimes work, other times not ▼ Bug that forced a reload after playing a card during main campaign scenario
AND THE REST:	↔ The AI has 3x difficulty setting and is capable but flawed on medium. It did perform a few questionable moves such as: artillery moving on its own as a spearhead attack ↔ Steam supports overlay screenshot capture and Remote Play Together ↔ Multiplayer supports shared/split screen for local and PBEM for online PvP ↔ Support is provided for 10x languages ↔ Soundtrack is generic, but connects with the mood of the conflict. Can sound atmospheric during certain phases of play

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2943130055

KEY OBSERVATIONS:

THE GAME
► Plays like a board game.
► The scale of the conflict seems a better fit than the Winter War title. This type of warfare embraces the game's design in a better way.
► Map detail, abstracted themed cards, key historical events and orders of battle gear the game to provide an historically accurate recreation of this conflict.
► Scenarios are plentiful and provide a better spread of content than the previously reviewed title. Played in chronological order they become a first rate primer for the full 150+ turn campaign. However, they are very structured in design and outcome, tending to play out historically.
► With 150 possible turns The Grand Campaign provides a less rigid experience than scenarios. Gameplay proved to be structured, but expansive by allowing the freedom to pursue the war across the full map. An economy system adds some dynamicity by allowing players to periodically purchase extra cards, replacements or units. Several initial force can be purchased at a cost of VPs to enhance starting positions.
► The familiar multi-round battle system returns providing a fair representation of week-long engagements over a couple of rounds. However, many battles will tend to be one-sided especially in the player's favour, unless the player makes a mistake. This will not be the case with human opponents.
► Since casualties work on a minimal, but cumulative way formations will lose manpower piecemeal, unless the size and make-up of the force includes artillery and air support. This can see major dents into opposition manpower for brigade size formations. However, an ever present retreat option ensures the majority of troops can live to fight another day, which the AI makes good use of at least.
► Pursuits and breakthroughs extend battles in a good way by allowing sides to inflict additional casualties to defeated forces or allow mobile units to capture additional regions. However, it seems that even unmanned trench systems can defeat a solitary attacking infantry unit.
► The AI would send lone artillery or AAA with escorts to take a region or not fully committing to a defensive line. It does however seem to know to defend its key regions effectively with numbers. The tighter scope in smaller scenarios restricted the possibility of the AI making mistakes.
► The GUI has issues with the mouse. Selecting stacks, dragging them to a destination sometimes worked, but proved frustrating for much of my 35h. No feedback was provided as to what was being done wrong. Also very fiddly to select units from stacks.
► The card system provides some dynamicity to gameplay, there use across many of the turn's phases pivotal in providing much options with their themed flavour. A discard pile with the option of choosing how many cards to drop, would have helped smooth its propensity to leave the player with cards they would not play for the duration of the scenario. Too many times the bulk of a hand was not useful to the player.
► Would have loved to have seen leaders in, assigned to command formations. These could have added layer of strategy by providing the dilemma of using historical personalities or opting for alternates, for better or worse.
► In some scenarios reinforcement units were introduced in locations to far from frontline with the number of turns still left to play
► Historical events that can lead to a premature outcome in the main campaign were painful. One such event caused my game to finish 34x turns into 150, from a winning position to defeat. Wish these were optional.

COMPLEXITY
► Both Communist and United Nation factions are represented historically through the painstakingly collated orders of battle, events and cards. Both sides do have strengths and weaknesses which affect how they should be played. Though there is some wiggle room in the main campaign, most of the players decisions will need to align with this carefully balanced seesaw.
► The structure turn phases does to the accessibility, what the GUI takes away. Making it easy for the player to focus on what they can do in small bitesize phases. This direction actually makes playing the game a joy.
► Endgame VP calculation is the biggest source of frustration. Every one of the 8x scenarios played resulted in my winning position being overturned. This made me feel cheated out of a legitimate win. As only the current VP score is shown the player needs to constantly be aware of the locations they need to take in order to win. It would be a better system to show what the probably outcome would be if the scenario ended that turn.
► The careful balance between large manpower, low technology forces vs low manpower, high technology forces does give each side its own form strategy, but the United nations sure are more fun to play with their air power.
► There is so much detail packed into scenarios that each one has a briefing document accessible within the game that clearly states all relevant rules and factors applicable. The main campaign briefing numbers 16 pages.

STAYING POWER
► Campaigns afford some replayability in their use of economy points to purchase additional cards, replacements and units. The scenarios just offer a historical recreation.
► All scenarios including short offensives and the longer campaigns can be played from the perspective of either side against three levels of AI.
► Events (Armistice) that result in premature outcomes, force a fair amount of replayability by thwarting the side currently in ascendency from finishing the game.
► Greater longevity is offered through play-by-email against human players. If you can find the the odd hibernating grogrand.
► Ahistorical options after playing scenarios are not included, but would increase the longevity of the game. As would allowing card selection or deselection in decks.
► A lack of achievements means little incentive except to play on after completing the content.
► Some what-if scenarios would great increase the game's current staying power. Perhaps a hoting up of the war to include: Communist China and Russia.

PERFORMANCE
► I encountered a few bugs. None that were critical or could not be bypassed. These are being fixed infrequently.
► Given its minimal graphical requirements the game unsurprisingly ran fine on the highest settings.
► Several times while moving units or selecting a card, would freeze the GUI and not allow the game to continue, requiring a restart.

REVIEWED WITH:

Game Build: Feb 16. Played main campaign and 6x shorter scenarios.
INTEL i5 6600 3.3GHz, 8GB RAM, GTX970 @ 1GB 1920x1080 windowed, EVO850 SSD, Speedlink XEOX Pro Analog Gamepad

Find more related screenshots:

HERE

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2943132017

VERDICT:

SGS Korean War is no sandbox wargame, but a detailed, historically structured strategic simulation of the conflict its named after. While it has some enjoyable aspects to gameplay and warfare that better fits the engine, it possesses some significant issues with the interface that make for a frustrating time. A lacking AI that sometimes performs adequately. Some scenarios are too short and rigidity of outcome is a theme across the game. The biggest pain is endgame scoring, that can seemingly grab defeat from the jaws of victory.

The main campaign was interesting to play and at times engrossing. Against another human SGS Korean War may just be worthwhile to play. As a single player game its a MAYBE.

Thank you for reading. | Follow my curator here. | Key provided by Turn-Based Tactics