A Review from an old RTS Fan.

[wildbillhdmax01]

I usually don't write reviews because I'm lazy but was a must.

Men of war Assault squad 2 is the sequel to the well received Assault Squad. Even with this being a sequel there are still major and blatant problems with this game.

1st. Lack of new content.

The 1st problem with this game is that there isn't very much new content. For being a sequel you would think there would be. It's more of an over all update to the 1st game. The only thing that the 2nd game added is an updated a game with better optimization, better UI, graphics, sound, and Steam features. There is 15 "New" single player "skirmishes", plus 25 reworked old ones from the original Assault Squad. Making 40 single player missions. Which isn't very much, especially being 25 old one. Which let me remind you that is "3", "3" new Missions for each Nations.

Most of the new content that is been added as been added in patches. That is were a lot of its coming from. Like health bar, skins, models, sounds, Units and new voices.

2nd. AI

One of the thing you will ran across is the Stupid AI both on the enemies side and your Units. You will be doing a lot of micromanagement, do to the stupidity of your units. A good example would be your medics not picking up your dead men unless told to do so! It's not uncommon to get focused on one part of the battlefield only to come back and see 4-5 men on the ground and your medic sitting there. Making you to manually to him to get each one.

Amour showing their ass and side to the enemy or just refusing to turn their front to the enemy. If you know anything about tanks or amour, you would know that the thickest amour is in the front. Well someone didn't tell your troops. Because 1 too many time have I had to take over control of a tank or Armoured car and position it the right way.

Sniper will sit there a lot even though they have clear shot on enemy troops. So many times I've had to click on enemy troops to get my snipers to pick off targets.
AT (Anti Tank) troops will ran across an open battlefield to shot a tank point blank range. When I've been able to take control and do from half of the Range. I've literally watch Panzerschreck troops ran straight to a tank and get killed, and if that is not enough, a lot of the times, they will just stare at it from a far while it kills all his comrades! Even better is when they're right next to it, get killed, and didn't even fire a shot.

With this Friendly and enemy troops won't even fire at one another even when theres a tank troop right on the other side of the dead tank. They will both sit there.

Enemy troops will hide and sit there when too many casualties are taken, instead of running, and regrouping. You are now force to ran to the 1 or 2 enemy soldiers and completely annihilate them with a full squad. If not? You can ignore them and continue your advance to the next objective!

So let me set this up for you.

The enemy is pushing on one side of the map hard, with Infantry, Tanks, and an armored car. You get caught up in this side of the map tiring to stop this advance. You are slugging it out knocking out tanks and shooting down Infantry, making sure your troops are fighting right, and micromanagement them so do not lose this side of the battlefield. Making sure your Panzerschreck troops are firing (Or even just taking control your self...) medics are get the dying up, and that your troops are picking the right targets.

Only to win that fight, go to look at the other side of the battlefield and see that your man have been annihilate because your medic didn't pick up the dead, your AT troops sat there, etc...

This is a very small list of some the stupid this that the AI does. I could go on picking out all the stupid drown right unbelievable things the AI will do. You literally need to micromanagement most if not all your troops.

3rd. A lack of total content.

Let's be honest here. It is not skirmish, these are single player Missions/campaigns. If you played an RTS before you most likely played one with a skirmish mode which is AI vs you and Ally AI on a map with some object or just to kill the other side.

This is a major problem do to the fact that those 40 missions get old fast. Since 1st 25 of them are old one from AS1, 2nd after you complete them there isn't anything to do after but to replay them over and over again. And most of the missions are just a Assault on key objective over and over again just on a different map. All you do is move to flag to flag to capture it. Some of the New missions are defensive mission or Sniper missions.

If you wanted new content you're ♥♥♥♥♥♥. There is 2 way to go. Go to the workshop and download user made missions or learn to use the Editor. Which is ridiculous!

1st The editor isn't easy enough for the average player to make new content for themselves. It isn't easy enough to even to make simple battles, let a lone missions. There isn't any Tutorials to help you except for one guy on YouTube, but he doesn't tell enough for how to make a mission or even a good battle. All these Epic battles on YouTube are just some guy placing random Units on each side, and having them ball up in an orgy in middle of the map and just kill. As if they weren't even train as soldiers. Taking no cover, nothing just kill, kill, kill.

I heard from the New patch that just came out, that DLC is on the way which in true is another sad joke, because now they're going to sell you new content that should of been in the game in the 1st place. IMHO they need to make a FREE DLC, that adds 10 new missions for each faction, then I can walk away content. Because even with that, that still wouldn't be enough for a game that $35. Do to the fact that it has very low replay value. In my honest opinion they really should've been 25- 30 new mission and the 25 old ones as Thank you to the fans. Then I could of walk away happy, but still disappointed in no real skirmish mode.

When it comes to the DLC, most likely it will be a couple of new missions, and a Couple of new multiplayer maps. Which should of been in the in the 1st place. 5 missions for $5 which is a such a bad joke it's unbelievable. What they need to do is Add new Nations, with Missions, New units, and equipment, etc. Like Italy, which was talked about on the Steam Community Hub forums, and is a great Idea. Why not do a Axis minors pack with Hungary and Romania , or even a Allies Minor pack? Poland would be a Great one too, or even France. With this then you can do Missions pack with 20-30 or so missions. Or even just expansion to the already existing nations, with New units, equipment, missions, etc.

With all of this, It seems like this game was made for multiplayer, yet the multiplayer is dead. Yet It was the same way with AS1. The most I've seen is about 8-10 lobbies at prime times. Even Company of Heroes, in it late 4-5 years still had 20-30 lobbies going at once. Even if you were to play multiplayer, you would most likely get your ass kick by a veteran of the games Anyway.

4th. The verdict

The problem is that they made this really great RTS, (one of the best I've played) but doesn't have any content in it. Out of all the RTS games I've played, this one has the least amount of content. And I've played them all, I've played Command & Conquer, Age of Empires, Company of Heroes, Empire Earth, Total War, Star Wars Empire At War, Dawn of War, World In Conflict, StarCraft, and many more I can't think of right now.

The Biggest problem is that I feel that they just made the tools for you make your own content. As if they made AI, the Units, UI, etc, and just sold you the tools to make your own game, and made a some missions as examples.

Would I recommend this game? I would say No. Because even though it's a great game, with the lack of content and the Good but over just an update to the 1st AS there isn't much here. It being 6 month since release, they could still save this game, with a FREE DLC Mission pack, ( With more than just 1 missions for each Nations!!!) and some new Nations DLCs. But the big problem will still be the replay value, do to no real skirmish mode.

[Opavius]

wildbillhdmax01님이 먼저 게시:

Opavius님이 먼저 게시:

1)First sentence is nonsense, write it again.

- this is a LOT MORE THAN AN OVERAL PATCH. THIS REQUIRED A LOT OF TIME, DO YOU THINK PEOPLE WORK FOR FREE NOWADAYS? You must still go to school right ? Because it looks like you dont know the value of time and work.

4) Game is not worth 35$? Jeez, so you say "dont buy it than" ? WHat about to write - "In my opinion, it would be worth to wait for a sale" Think about it. You are not recommending maybe the best WW2 RTS game on market now.

Compared to your writing? That's called mistake, it happens.

There it is! There it is. I've seen people use this argument so many times when someone disagrees with a game that it's old.

And The idea that this is the best WW2 RTS game on market now, just an opinion.

You write ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥, sorry man. Put some logic in it pls.
Yes, its my opinion, its the best WW2 RTS game on market now, but i am not the only one who ay it. Not to mention, if i search through all WW2 RTS now, this REALLY is the best one.

P.S. You didnt answered - you are still studying right ? If yes, you will remember it when yo usatrt to work, that you cannot spend hundreds of hours working for free, just because some "wildbillhdmax" calles it "just a patch"...

[Opavius]

And maybe the most important thing in the end - even if you dont like this game, if you have some opinion on it, how can you say, dont buy this game ? What if someone reads this and will not buy this game, although he would enjoy it ? (Sorry for grammar, its not my first language) And if you dont list EVERY aspect of this game, you cannot write such hard things.

You can post your opinion, why not, its forum, its for everyone, but dont blame people. This game can be woth it, if someone is fan of WW2 theme and fan of micromanagement RTS...

[CountOnMe]

Well, I've been playing RTS games for 15 years and I've played nearly all of the WW2 RTS games, and my OPINION is that it is indeed the best WW2 RTS ever and probably the best RTS game I have ever played. This game game has everything that the other games I mentioned had and more, and it does everything they did, but better. In 2004, when I saw Soldiers Heroes of WW2, I thought if somebody used this brilliant engine to create somewhat larger scale battles like in Blitzkrieg, this game would be the best, and so it was.

[Opavius]

Gizmoo님이 먼저 게시:

Damn where is ma popcorn !!!

In wildmanhdmax01s head.

[Opavius]

CountOnMe님이 먼저 게시:

Well, I've been playing RTS games for 15 years and I've played nearly all WW2 RTS games, and my OPINION is that it is indeed the best WW2 RTS ever and probably the best RTS game I ever played. This game game has everything that the other games I mentioned had and more, and it does everything they did, but better. In 2004, when I saw Soldiers Heroes of WW2, I thought if somebody used this brilliant engine to create somewhat larger scale battles like in Blitzkrieg, this game would be the best, and so it was.

You see wildman ? Watch what you write and which strong words you say. There are many many people that come to this series and are excited so much... there are many posts from them in this forum. And not only them, almost all veterans of SHOWW2 and FoW/MoW are enjoying it too.

[Opavius]

Gizmoo님이 먼저 게시:

Nice opavo but i think you forgot some kind of conclusion for you literature.

Its not so easy to write in English for me, its not my first language + i had hard day today in college + am learning now physiology and microbiology, so pls dont expect any essays or jokes or whatever from me... :-P

P.S. Ou and sorry for those long posts, but sometimes you just cannot be that short... :-/

[CountOnMe]

I don't understand guys like him and their attitude. Saying that the game needs some more content and saying that it is a waste of money are two completely different things. That's like saying Jessica Alba is one of the hottest women I've seen, but her chin could be a little smaller so I wouldn't ♥♥♥♥ her. Does that make sense? No, it does not.

[Opavius]

CountOnMe님이 먼저 게시:

I don't understand guys like him and their attitude. Saying that the game needs some more content and saying that it is a waste of money are two completely different things. That's like saying Jessica Alba is one of the hottest women I've seen, but her chin could be a little smaller so I wouldn't ♥♥♥♥ her. Does that make sense? No, it does not.

+10 :D

[wildbillhdmax01]

CountOnMe님이 먼저 게시:

I don't understand guys like him and their attitude. Saying that the game needs some more content and saying that it is a waste of money are two completely different things. That's like saying Jessica Alba is one of the hottest women I've seen, but her chin could be a little smaller so I wouldn't ♥♥♥♥ her. Does that make sense? No, it does not.

I never said it was a "Waste of Money" that is wasn't worth do to it not having enough content.

[Opavius]

Gizmoo님이 먼저 게시:

Opavius is that you ??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMUKPUjxmF4

Its my double ;-)

[DeltaDude]

This topic has gone way off course and has turned into a troll / argument thread.

Everyone is allowed to have their own opinion, but thats what it is. Their opinion, it is neither right or wrong, it is just what they feel.

I will be closing this, if you want to post your review up please check out the review section
http://steamcommunity.com/app/244450/reviews/