Again, Comanche vs. Hokum gets passing marks easily as a simulation. If you want a sim that feels right, gives you some great eye candy, and two different helicopters to boot, the only real thing holding this sim back is the lack of in-box training materials. Conversely, if Comanche vs. Hokum does well meeting the basic sim requirements, its potential to go beyond can initially appear average. The concept of a campaign is not new, nor is the dynamic campaign, nor the multiplayer suite (16 players via LAN, internet), nor the virtual battlefield, nor the ability to link to another package (Enemy Engaged: Apache vs. Havoc). Is it simply another cookie-cutter sim, based on helicopters already modeled by other software packages? Actually, the answer is yes, but the mold for Comanche vs. Hokum came from Razorworks' own Apache vs. Havoc, and the quality continues here.

If there's an underrated merit of simulations, it's in the role-playing aspects. Comanche vs. Hokum doesn't make the player the hero, but it also doesn't make it too easy to be the goat. The campaigns task players with real duties, including some seemingly insignificant items like ferrying a squadron from base to base, or escorting assault helicopters on what might appear to be a cakewalk mission. There are also more dangerous and expected jobs of strike, air interdiction, and recon. But unlike the campaigns of other sims, the world doesn't revolve around the player. Even in the better games, the performance of the player tends to drive the whole war effort. Lose a pair of missions in a row, and half the war is lost. Win, and read after-action reports of tremendous victory across the board.

Your success helps in Comanche vs. Hokum, and individual efforts are recognized and rewarded, but at the same time, the game forces you to respect your fellow squadrons, support teams, and other ground forces. You can also lose missions, but if your fellow soldiers are doing well, the war will continue as if you weren't there. Believe me, I crashed a lot of Comanches, but was able to win because my team did well as a whole in meeting objectives. Winning can bolster a strong position in the war and accelerate its end, but losing missions is more a nuisance unless done consistently, when it then becomes a drain on resources and can delay the advance of troops.

One of the fascinating things is to follow the progress of other teams. You can watch as jet fighters work to achieve air superiority, or as a ground convoy moves to take a base you've just subdued. It's refreshing not just to see the simulation part of a game done right, but also the lessons it teaches. In most sims, the player is lead to believe that the featured technology, be it tanks, jets, or ships, is solely responsible for winning wars. But you cannot take land with a helicopter in Comanche vs. Hokum, and if you don't maintain the airspace over the grunts that are trying to do it for you, the enemy will.