Battlestations: Midway was an odd one. An intriguing splice of real-time strategy and third-person air and naval combat, Eidos Hungary’s first title was the apparent lovechild of Sir Winston Churchill and Jean Claude van Damme; a game pitched with the idea of being as accessible to thrill-seekers as much as it was strategists. It was a laudable move and one that introduced a refreshing twist to the staling WWII genre, but at the same time it was obvious from the game’s imperfections that Eidos’ lofty ambitions weren’t quite satisfied.

For Pacific, Eidos has taken a less-ambitious ‘sequel-by-numbers’ approach. They’ve added more missions, lots more in fact. With both a Japanese and US campaign to play through, Pacific’s mission tally stands at an impressive 28, leagues ahead of the original’s relatively pitiful 11. They’ve improved the game’s visuals too; water effects have been substantially improved to the point of being almost photo-realistic, while damage modelling is noticeably superior as well; ships buckle after an 800lb bomb rips through their belly, planes tear to pieces after being met with a barrage of anti-air fire, and animated crewmen manically rush about the deck when under attack. The multiplayer – arguably the element that Battlestations aficionados will be most looking forward to – has also been expanded, now with five different game types, including options for quick five minute duels, or lengthy multiple-hour battles.

But what Eidos has managed to miss, however, is an opportunity to fix the original’s biggest failings. By attempting to appeal to both audiences, neither component of Battlestations actually ended up being particularly good. The combat was slow and unexciting – perhaps somewhat so because of the game’s intended authenticity – and neither were the game’s strategic elements particularly deep or engaging, merely being an exercise in deploying units from a stockpile and telling them where to attack.

And that hasn’t changed for Pacific. The tactical map, though simple to use, is still deprived of much-needed options: why can’t I select multiple units or order them to guard certain boundaries? Where’s the option to queue units should a squadron be destroyed, and indeed, the visual cue to inform me of their demise? They’re small points, but functions you’d expect in a game that prides itself on its tactical warfare. And despite being actively encouraged in later missions, it’s often preferable to avoid using the map altogether and simply switch between each unit as and when required. Allied AI can be fairly inaccurate and slow to respond, with air units choosing to take long sweeping turns rather than sharp, more direct twists, meaning that ordering units via the map can often be unproductive, let alone cumbersome. The turning point for this writer came when a plane under AI control dived at a vessel in preparation of unloading its payload, only to not bother and pull out of the dive at the last minute, being torn to shreds in the process.

The original’s sluggish structure remains as well. Though the US campaign proves to be more immediately entertaining opening with an impressive dogfight over war-torn seas, the first mission of the Japanese campaign – the assault on Pearl Harbour – is particularly underwhelming, skimping on any sense of panic or urgency in a scenario perfectly suited to it. It isn’t until the fifth mission (i.e. a couple of hours in) where the game really begins to shine, combining everything you’ve learnt up until that point to provide an intense (and appropriately lengthy) assault on US strongholds.

But it’s here that Battlestations comes into its own. The scale of war is hugely impressive, maps are enormous and the battles well recreated; as swarms of aircraft wage war in the skies while battleships exchange artillery fire in the seas below, some of Pacific’s later missions couldn’t be labelled as anything less than spectacular. It’s just a shame that it takes so long to get there.

So when Pacific gets it right, it’s a thoroughly sublime experience, but we can’t help but feel that Eidos is simply relying on Battlestations’ individuality to see it through. There’s no escaping the fact that the original’s biggest problem still remains; Battlestations’ relatively weak strategy just isn’t developed enough to appeal to die-hard tacticians, nor is the game exciting enough to warrant attention from those looking for heart-pounding warfare. It’s an interesting, and occasionally incredibly entertaining middle-ground, but one that ultimately requires a bucket load of patience.

Have you downloaded the latest issue from GamerZines yet? Check it out here!