Theatre of War 3: Korea

About

Theatre of War 3: Korea is a single player and multiplayer real-time strategy game. It was developed by Fulqrum Publishing and was released on March 24, 2011. It received negative reviews from players.

"Theatre of War 3: Korea" is a strategy game set during the Korean War. Players can participate in two campaigns, one from the North Korean perspective and one from the American, covering the war's early and later stages. The game introduces a new strategic mode, allowing players to manage their forces and resources across the Korean Peninsula, with tactical battles generated based on the strategic situation. Notable features include non-linear dynamic campaigns, a campaign generator, and updated control systems focusing on squads rather than individual soldiers.

Genres & Tags

Play Modes

Skip User Reviews

39%

Audience ScoreBased on 180 reviews

graphics8 positive mentions

gameplay4 negative mentions

The game offers a unique setting during the Korean War, providing a fresh perspective in the strategy genre.
When it works, the game can be quite fun and engaging, especially for those who enjoy realistic tactics and micromanagement.
The graphics are decent for a game from 2011, and the campaign editor adds replayability.

The game is plagued by frequent crashes and performance issues, making it unplayable for many users.
AI pathfinding and unit control are often frustrating, with units behaving erratically and failing to follow commands.
There is a severe lack of maps and variety in gameplay, leading to repetitive experiences.

story
24 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
13%
74%
13%
The game's story aspect is enhanced by a campaign and mission editor that allows for significant replayability, including the creation of scenarios featuring a hidden early 1950s USSR faction. However, players have noted flaws such as unutilized weapons in missions, unresponsive AI, and game crashes, which detract from the overall experience. While it offers a more realistic portrayal of warfare compared to similar titles, these issues have led to mixed reviews regarding its storytelling effectiveness.
- “I also love the scenarios that you can make with the campaign and mission editor; it adds a lot of replay value to it.”
- “The campaign and mission editor offers a good amount of replayability.”
- “If you enjoy games like Company of Heroes but want a more realistic look at warfare of the era, I recommend Theater of War, and even more so, Combat Mission: Battle for Normandy, Fortress Italy, Red Thunder, or Final Blitzkrieg!”
- “Completed a mission without doing anything.”
- “Because the missions are not timed, all the panzers who cannot cross the bridge at the German spawn point stay there until you get bored and turn off the game.”
- “There are just too many faults with it and after experiencing the game crash for no reason on my 3rd mission in the campaign, I'm definitely sure this game is bad.”
graphics
16 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
50%
31%
19%
The graphics of the game, released in 2011, are generally considered good for its genre, though not on par with AAA titles. While some users noted occasional issues, such as crashes that could be mitigated by capping the framerate, the overall visual quality is deemed satisfactory for a real-time strategy game of its time. However, opinions vary, with some users expressing disappointment in the graphics quality.
- “The graphics are quite good for a 2011 RTS game.”
- “For a game that came out in 2011, the graphics are fine; they are not top of the line, but who cares?”
- “The tactical part is well made and realistic, with good graphics.”
- “Bad graphics.”
- “Graphics - for a game which came out in 2011, the graphics are fine; they are not top of the line, but who cares?”
- “Graphics - for a game which came out in 2011, the graphics are fine; they are not top of the line, but who cares?”
gameplay
16 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
19%
56%
25%
The gameplay is marred by significant issues, including frequent crashes, jerky controls, and numerous bugs and glitches that detract from the overall experience. The tutorial fails to adequately teach players the game mechanics, which is particularly problematic given the game's focus on micro-management. Overall, these factors contribute to a frustrating gameplay experience that may disappoint fans of similar strategy games.
- “After about 5 minutes of gameplay, it feels like Men of War: Assault Squad 2 (not sure about the other Men of Wars, I've only played the second).”
- “I've provided some gameplay, don't hesitate to take a peek.”
- “Yeah sure it's got bugs and I can understand how someone who loves Starcraft would get easily frustrated with the type of gameplay.”
- “It has really jerky controls and bad gameplay.”
- “It has so many bugs and glitches that it ruins the gameplay.”
- “The tutorial is meaningless, leaving the gamer to understand game mechanics or unit commands by themselves. This would not be a great problem if this wasn't a game focused on micro-management of troops.”
stability
10 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
The game's stability is heavily criticized, with numerous reports of frequent bugs, glitches, and freezing issues that significantly detract from the overall gameplay experience. While some players appreciate the realism, the technical problems are a major turn-off for many, leading to frustration and diminished enjoyment.
- “It has so many bugs and glitches that it ruins the gameplay.”
- “Plus it freezes a lot...”
- “Loads then freezes.”
grinding
8 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
Players find the grinding aspect of the game tedious due to the limited number of maps, leading to repetitive gameplay as they repeatedly engage in battles in the same locations. While the combat and strategy elements are praised, the necessity to grind for unit upgrades and achievements can detract from the overall experience, making it less appealing for those who prefer variety and faster progression.
- “There are only a few maps, so you will feel that you are fighting in the same place again and again, making the campaign tedious and repetitive.”
- “There literally are only a few maps that will randomly generate when you try and defend a region or attack one, which can get quite tedious.”
- “It has good combat and good strategy, but can be very tedious at some points with the same units and maps.”
optimization
4 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
The game is widely criticized for its lack of optimization, with multiple users reporting that it feels poorly optimized and performs inadequately.
- “Additionally, it feels poorly optimized.”
- “Not optimized at all.”
replayability
4 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
75%
25%
Players appreciate the strong replayability of the game, primarily due to the campaign and mission editor, which allows for the creation of diverse scenarios. This feature significantly enhances the overall experience by providing players with numerous opportunities to engage with the game in new ways.
- “I also love the scenarios that you can create with the campaign and mission editor; it adds a lot of replay value to the game.”
- “The campaign and mission editor offers a good amount of replayability.”
- “The campaign and mission editor provides a great way to enhance replayability.”
emotional
2 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
The emotional aspect of the game is characterized by a profound sense of heartbreak, leaving players with a strong desire to connect with and appreciate the experience, despite its challenges.
- “This is one of those heartbreaking games where you really, really want to like it.”