Men of War 2 – Royal Court Reviews

Bro just have no idea how to play the game and complains that his infantry is dying, amazing)) By the way, the main gem of this game is multiplayer battles.

5 years developing to build a sh*t like this

I understand your view but the game feels very balanced and there’s always something to copy there something else, the multiplayer battalion later is the most fun I’ve ever had in men of war and the rock paper scissors nature , it’s fun, and by far has attracted the most new players compared to any other men of war!

I like the game, it's fun in the way MOW always has been (despite being 2, theres actually like a dozen of them, not including Gate Of hell, etc). So as im sure you gathered the game is supposed to be more realistic than like Company of Heroes, but I noticed that some of the balance is bizarre. Infantry like you said, is far far squishier than even other games in the series, but the AT guns seem strangely resilient. Theres also not nearly enough micro tools to make it as easy to control as it should be. They've always been granular, like you can throw a grenade into the back of a halftrack, kill the crew, and drive off with it. I think if they either made the map/ unit count smaller it would work better, or make it easier to control. In the older games they tended to give you a fixed amount of troops, usually a small amount and it would essentially be like assault on precinct 13 where you fight off a bunch of idiots. Never played multiplayer much.

I wouldn't drop $45 on this game when the other games are cheaper, they didn't improve enough and the balance is weird, even by the realism they are suppossed to be going for. Not unless they put a lot of work into it. I wouldn't even have the game if I didn't get a key from the publisher. I bought into the closed beta a few years ago, and that's why I got a key. It used to be even more of a shitshow, because they were wanting to make it a F2P game. Yes, I'm not joking, they originally had this as a F2P game with microtransactions, and I think thats where some of the weird shit comes from, I think it's a holdover.

Sound design stuff doesn't really bother me, but the voice acting is comedically bad. It's so fucked it belongs in a museum. I do not understand why they didn't reach out to fans to help them out, they already had a dedicated fanbase when this game was in development.
his game when the other games are cheaper

TL:DR I agree with pretty much everything you said. Gameplay needs some serious rebalancing and control improvements as well.

Everything you complained about gameplay wise makes the game sound good

It sounds like you're used to and prefer more arcadey RTS games, which is what the industry has been mostly releasing and pushing on people. Which is fine. But these games are known to NOT be that.

This doesn't look like an upgrade from Men of war assault squad or Call to arms. It seems they just keep making the same game over and over again with slightly difficult ui.

I dont think the game is originally in english so the English lines and voice acting might just be an after thought.

Well, you didn't understood this game at all judging by your comments on infantry and the scarcity of command points. This is a game made for cooperative teamplay first.

This pretty sums up games developed by any Eastern European countries : Stay true to history and authenticity but the sound design and voice acting are generic. Also lack of gameplay options and poor game balancing measures(Warthunder has the same problems)

Dont listen him.Men of War 2 actually is a very good strategy game.Its not Gates of hell , and its not assauls squad 2 , and its not company of heroes 2.Men of War 2 is different , and I actually like it very much.Lets just take a try, and dont listen critics that lives nostalgia , and criticise eveyrthing

Ok. This dude…..
1. complains that a men of war game plays like a men of war game.
2. if the game is too fast for you, you can slow the game down…
3. So you tell me to play COH2 (which I played for a long time) why not COH3? Isn't it newer and maybe better?

PS: Please never do a review of Gates of Hell: Ostfront. Clearly, microintensive RTS games are not your thing.

I think the point of the campaign is to micromanage one squad. In the first men of war, almost all the story missions you are given a very small squad to micro with a VIP unit who if they die you lose the mission. I would NOT consider it a massive fast pace RTS. The only mission which you are at scale (have units all over the battlefield) is missions where you are defending and not attacking. I don't think anyone can launch a coordinated attack on all fronts in any men of war game.

I’ve been a veteran of this series since 2004, which is now twenty years, and that’s insane. ‘Gates of Hell’ maintains the legacy, but unfortunately, the engine is a mess and the net code is broken. ‘Men of War 2’, also known as ‘Soldier Arena’, was designed to be a free-to-play, pay-to-win arcade-style model, which is clearly shown in the final product. Neither of them are true successors to the original ‘Men of War’ from 2009. One went too arcade-like, and the other is very unstable. Keep in mind that the original people who made the ‘Men of War’ series are basically no longer there, such as the people who created the engine. ‘Gates of Hell’ are essentially modders who are good at adding new features and detailed models, but not for the game engine. This engine is a heavily modified gem engine from 2009 that originally ran in 32 bits. Yet, they’ve increased the polygon count that the engine cannot handle, which the developers of ‘Men of War 2’ are aware of, hence the model design. In short, if the Gamespy shutdown hadn’t happened, I would probably still be playing the original ‘Men of War’ from 2009. Both of them are disappointing in one way or another, but of course, that’s just my opinion.

An honest review rather than a paid schill thank you MiAh subscribed because i like honesty.

Good sir you are gonna take a lot of flak for this review, but pay no heed to the haters. The game was designed, as someone else who commented here earlier: "for military nerds". Its for the folks that like to spend their time comparing muzzle velocities of tank cannons and what not. Which there is absolutely nothing wrong with, I support peoples interest in military history even if it is for the technical details. But this is where the realism debate comes in. For the audience of this game, realism means detail for the sake of detail.

From your analysis I gather that you and I share a similar view on what should constutute 'realism' in a PC wargame, but people have different opinions and viewpoints and this game was designed for a specific audience who see things differently. Which there is absolutely nothing wrong with, the game is just not for us.

this game mostly for military nerds..

No interest in multiplayer. But can I issue orders while game is paused in single player?

6:50

"Tactical based game that doesn't use normal tactical game practices?"

I was listening intently, but I didn't agree with this from my point of view.
This is a clear bias towards "tactical games" as you call them which group up units in squads, and have you effectively micromanage less, such as Company of Heroes.

If you're basing most of your opinions on the gameplay based on CoH then of course this will seem like a downgrade, especially if you're expecting the game to abstract single-unit controls from you in favor of you having to do less micro. Thing is, MoW's beauty is in the fact that it has a lot of things happening at the same time. It's hard, but rewarding once you get the hang of how to use infantry, squads, vehicles, etc.
I used to be quite bad when it comes to managing my infantry in Gates of Hell: Ostfront, which is very similar to this game. After a while though, I figured out what's the best way to have them protect a position, and didn't have to micro them as much.

Also, sometimes my micro meant that my infantry squad was able to push an MG nest by throwing smokes in the path.

Overall, good video, but I'd say try to be aware of your biases, or at least announce them for the future viewers. As you'll probably get a lot of backlash from the playerbase who actually enjoys the little details MoW/GoH games have to offer compared to CoH or other titles

The Eastern front is Russia, Western front is the USA and her allies. Japan was under the Pacific theater.

Look man, the fact you said men of war 1 said enough that you haven't played any of these games (not bad it's just funny to hear). There are a whole bunch of them but only two really get played. That being Men of War Assault Squad 2 (different devs then from Men of War) and Gates of Hell (A AS2 mod them that made their own more detailed and better game). There was also Call to Arms, a modern take on the genre (different devs again) but it seems mostly unplayed but was a great game that changed a lot like adding first/third person and helicopters. The rest of the games were just bad (Cold war, don't buy it) or replaced by newer. The Men of War theme is great due to its mix of single player/COOP/Editor (you can make your own maps and battles) and finally the only reason I still play mostly is the modding scene. There are Star Wars overhauls, Warhammer 40k, 1700-1800 musket era to breach loading over haul (cowboys too). It's just been my favorite games to play since I got a PC (RIP battlefield)

The Germans didnt have the best of everything. That is a wehraboo myth. If the German faction is OP its due to game design mistakes.

Generally modern historians mostly agree that the Allies had overall superior engineering