strategy |

Strategy games are usually a PC mainstay and end up being killer apps on that platform. As technology, improved strategy games, both real-time and turn-based, leaked out onto consoles more with some memorable games and even some of the best in the genre’s history.

Fire Emblem: Three Houses

Fire Emblem’s continuous streak of top-quality games is refreshing. In a genre that has been mainly dominated by PC games, it’s nice to see a console game make a break. Fire Emblem has a fantastic story along with some incredibly deep turn-based strategy that isn’t topped by many others.

Runner-Ups

Slay the Spire

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Age of Wonders: Planetfall

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Sid Meiers Civilization VI: Gathering Storm

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Total War: Three Kingdoms

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

2018 Game of the Year Awards — Genre Awards — Best Strategy Game

Posted by BinaryMessiah on 12/24/2018

Posted in: 2018, Game of the Year Awards. Tagged: 2018, awards, battletech, frost punk, game of the year, goty, into the breach, strategy, the banner saga 3, valkyria chronicles 4. Leave a comment

What a weak year for strategy games. The usual big names like StarCraft, Civilization, and others are missing this year. There were a few great games, but they were so spread out I started to wonder if the genre died.

Battletech

Battletech wasn’t just the best PC game this year but the best strategy. It was a breath of fresh air in a genre that usually gets over-saturated with shovelware through the year. It hit all the marks that hardcore fans wanted and looked good doing it.

Runner-Ups

Frostpunk

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Valkyria Chronicles 4

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

The Banner Saga 3

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Into the Breach

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Halo Wars: Definitive Edition

Posted by BinaryMessiah on 06/26/2018

Posted in: Microsoft Consoles, PC Reviews, Steam Deck Verification, Steam Deck Verified, Xbox One. Tagged: bungie, definitive edition, halo, Microsoft, remaster, strategy, wars. Leave a comment

Publisher: Microsoft Game Studios

Developer: Ensemble Studios

Release Date: 12/20/2016

Also Available On

You would never think of Halo and real-time strategy, the two might not mix all that well. Halo Wars was a huge deal when it was first released as it was a huge risk. It was the first time anyone but Bungie touched the Halo franchise and many were skeptical. To my own surprise, the game checks most of a good RTS game off the list, but being the first time into this category it does have its issues.

apps-23354-13510798887669257-c4bf71c3-571c-48cb-b108-04b88a59e55d

The first issue is the story. The 15 missions are accompanied by pretty pre-rendered cutscenes we have grown to love from the series with great voice acting and stellar music. You play as Sgt. Forge is assigned to the Spirit of Fire and must destroy an ancient world that is full of an unstoppable army built by an ancient race. The Covenant wants these weapons and they capture a human scientist named Anders as the machines can only be activated by human touch. It’s not the best story and it really fills a minute gap in the Halo timeline and doesn’t really mean all that much.

When it comes to actually playing the game you are greeted with RTS basics, and I mean the minimum basics as the game never moves on past that. Most RTS games require you to find and acquire resources to build an army to defeat the enemy. Halo Wars has only one resource and this is in the form of generic supplies. You can find crates along the ground, but you must build supply pads on your base and this is the first thing you do every single mission. Second, your base has limited slots for buildings, and this is where the game breaks down a little. I would have 3-4 supply pads upgraded to advanced ones and it still takes forever to get enough resources to steadily upgrade all my buildings and troops. A solid 25-30 minutes is needed just to maintain an army to defeat most enemies on a map and even longer to get all the upgrades.

It’s a frustrating battle of nursing your resources with most time spent waiting for them to accumulate which is not fun and quite boring. Nearly every mission where I was given a base had my guys just standing there for 20 minutes so I could research as much as possible for only what I needed for that map. The Armory is used to research tech only and this comes in the form of +10 to population, Spirit of Fire strikes, more troops per unit, etc. After you acquire all research here which is only a couple of tiers the building is useless and you can recycle it and build another supply pad. The Barracks are used for only two ground troops and for researching their upgrades. The Air Depot has three different air types and the Vehicle Depot has a few things as well. It’s very basic with only core Halo units you have seen in the console games. It covers every discipline well and they all do their job fine, but some units require over a thousand supplies and this can take up to 1-2 minutes to accumulate just for one unit. So instead of being able to send out drones to acquire a mass amount of supplies, everything is rigged to a timer essentially and it makes things not very fun.

The population cap is 40 and that’s not many troops considering some larger units can take up to 6 population slots. Once you get them out and fighting it looks pretty awesome and feels just like a Halo game with familiar enemies and sounds. The Spirit of Fire attacks can give you a leg up, but it doesn’t feel as powerful as it should. A MAC attack or carpet bomb, even fully upgraded, may do 1/8 to 1/4 damage on an enemy base. You would expect for the long cooldown time that you can wipe out all of or most of a base and larger enemy units. It’s so incredibly unbalanced and frustrating that I always felt I never had an advantage no matter how well I played. Even when you get multiple bases it doesn’t help outside of giving you quicker access to troops and more supply pads. With the pop cap at 40, you would think more bases would mean a larger population increase.

Missions are at least varied with some escorts, defense, offense, and various others. One frustrating mission had me on a ship fending off Flood with a timed sweep that killed everything in sight. It took almost 45 minutes just to clear everything off the ship. Another mission had me station vehicles at 5 different spots to blow open a large base shield. I had to constantly go back and forth defending them and clearing spots to put them down. There are not enough troops to leave with each vehicle due to the low population cap. Every troop is essential.

With all that said, Halo Wars has the units, looks, and sound down for a great RTS game, but it’s so rudimentary, unbalanced, and boring with a majority of your time waiting for things to build and cooldown. There’s a lot of mission variety, but it won’t matter as the rest of the game plagues these missions. The story is also nothing memorable and doesn’t mean much in the Halo universe. I really can’t recommend this to RTS fans or Halo fans unless you’re curious.

2017 Game of the Year Awards — Genre Awards — Best Strategy Game

Posted by BinaryMessiah on 12/13/2017

Posted in: 2017, Game of the Year Awards. Tagged: blade of the shogun, crusade, galactic civilizations iii, game of the year awards, goty, kingdom battle, mario, rabbids, shadow tactics, starcraft remastered, strategy, total war, warhammer ii. Leave a comment

What a weak year for strategy games. The usual big names like StarCraft, Civilization, and others are missing this year. There were a few great games, but they were so spread out I started to wonder if the genre died.

Total War: Warhammer II

Warhammer II was a no-brainer this year. Being even better than the already fantastic original, it’s massive in scale and delivers all the Warhammer essentials for fans of the series. It’s deep, beautiful, fun, and challenging.

Runner-Ups

StarCraft: Remastered

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Galactic Civilizations III: Crusade

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Shadow Tactics: Blade of the Shogun

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Mario+Rabbids: Kingdom Battle

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

History of History: World War II Strategy: Hit & Miss Franchises

Posted by BinaryMessiah on 06/27/2013

Posted in: Blogs, History of History: World War II. Tagged: history, pc, real-time strategy, rts, strategy, world war ii, wwii. Leave a comment

The wrap-up of the strategy section of History of History: World War II deals with hits and misses over the past decade and a half. There were many strategy games that just flooded the PC market, and PC gamers had to sift through them to find the gems. Not all were bad, but some here just one-hit wonders never to see the light of day again.

Combat Command 2: Danger Forward!

Release Date: 12/17/2000

Systems: PC

GameRankings: 65%

Here’s an interesting game. It was by order mail only through the website and came shrink wrapped in a paper sleeve with the game manual. It was also play-by-e-mail as well so just imagine. The game is very simplistic, but fans of this genre know that doesn’t matter. The problem that held this game back so much was the terrible AI, and this was a problem with all war games back in the day until real-time strategy took off. It’s worth a look for the hardcore at least.

Sudden Strike

Release Date: 1/23/2001

Systems: PC

GameRankings: 76%

Sales: <10,000

Sudden Strike was a very simple WWII strategy game, it wasn’t serious at all. It had a toy soldier-type look to it, but didn’t sit well with hardcore strategy fans. Once you beat the campaign there was no reason to really go back.

Combat Command 2: Desert Rats

Release Date: 7/29/2001

Systems: PC

GameRankings: 71%

Not much changed from Danger Forward, but it was considered a bit better. It still had an overly simplistic design and look. It just pretty much got the job done but wasn’t really worth it unless you were a hardcore strategy gamer. Most people preferred the tabletop games, but good luck finding a copy.

Airborne Assault: Red Devils Over Arnhem

Release Date: 7/7/2002

Systems: PC

GameRankings: 77%

Sales: <10,000

Ever wonder how a game can be good with just one map? Call of Duty can’t. Airborne Assault could do it because it gave you full control. It came with a huge manual that detailed various tactical elements on the map, background on how the strategy works, tips, and various other things. They don’t make strategy games like they used to. This was back when you kicked your shoes off Friday night and sat down on your computer for 2 days doing nothing but figuring out the game. Your second weekend was dedicated to playing, and the third was conquering.

Strategic Command: European Theater

Release Date: 7/16/2002

Systems: PC

GameRankings: 67%

Strategic Command was well known for the “what if” scenarios you could play out rather than what happened hour by hour. It was still a simple borderline table-top-looking game, but it all came down to the core strategy. It was mainly plagued with terrible AI and wasn’t much different from other WWII strategy games at the time. Good luck finding someone today who will play these.

G.I. Combat

Release Date: 11/4/2002

Systems: PC

GameRankings: 44%

While most games thus far have been pretty decent, G.I. Combat is a real dud. This was back when strategy games started transitioning to 3D and weren’t doing a good job of it. The game had jerky animations, terrible graphics (even for back then), and downright awful AI. It also didn’t give you full control of your units.

World War II: Panzer Claws

Release Date: 11/14/2002

Systems: PC

GameRankings: 63%

Sales: <10,000

The end of 2002 was a time when strategy games for more casual players were coming out with more action like Command & Conquer and Warcraft. (Yes, it was an RTS before it was an MMO for all you kiddies out there) Panzer Claws had dated visuals that actually interrupted gameplay, as well as having that bad AI. This was a rough time for RTS.

World War II: Frontline Command

Release Date: 6/22/2003

Systems: PC

GameRankings: 72%

Frontline Command was a bit better, it had better graphics, but was still poorly paced, and had a bad interface. One mission would be fast-paced and fun, and the next three would be stealthy and bring everything to a crawl. It’s still worth looking into if you’re a hardcore RTS or WWII fan.

Squad Assault: West Front

Release Date: 11/2/2003

Systems: PC

GameRankings: 67%

Sales: <10,000

At this point in time, the Close Combat creators were pumping out games that kept resembling the groundbreaking strategy series. The graphics were still really dated, and it seemed the WWII strategy scene just couldn’t straighten itself out. While West Front wasn’t bad, it was just something we’ve played again many times before.

Airborne Assault: Highway to the Reich

Release Date: 12/10/2003

Systems: PC

GameRankings: 78%

Sales: <10,000

Wargaming is a really niche market, so niche that only 1 in maybe 100,000 people are into it. Airborne Assault finally got it right and pushed the genre a bit further. It was really fun and very accessible were many games in the past weren’t. If you love wargaming or want to get into it, this may be a good start.

War Times

Release Date: 4/1/2004

Systems: PC

GameRankings: 55%

War Times was riddled with many issues and lazy design. A lot of the maps were symmetrical so the AI could overwhelm you with better units quicker than you can build them, there were pathfinding issues, and many other problems that put this game at the bottom of the WWII RTS pile.

Soldiers: Heroes of World War II

Release Date: 6/30/2004

Systems: PC

GameRankings: 78%

Soldiers was an “almost but not quite” RTS game. It had a solid campaign and multiplayer but had issues with bad controls, difficulty, and various other small issues like bugs. I actually got this game free back when Direct2Drive was still around. I never got around to playing much, but the first two maps I played were fun, the game was accessible, and it had some entertaining presentation.

Codename: Panzers, Phase One

Release Date: 9/30/2004

Systems: PC

GameRankings: 81%

Sales: <10,000

The Codename: Panzers series seemed to hit the sweet spot for WWII RTS gamers back in the day. It had an excellent presentation, well-built maps, and a lengthy and challenging campaign. It was highly anticipated back in the day and was what Company of Heroes is now, the same kind of exposure. If you are itching for a good WWII RTS game I would start with this.

D-Day

Release Date: 12/7/2004

Systems: PC

GameRankings: 59%

Sales: <10,000

D-Day was just another WWII strategy game that was uninspired. The game had the usual problems, boring missions, bad pathfinding, dumb AI, and was just really generic. It did have some good interviews with war vets, but that’s about it.

Gary Grigsby’s World at War

Release Date: 3/25/2005

Systems: PC

GameRankings: 74%

Gary Gribsby’s was probably one of the best WWII wargame games to come out in years. It had clean visuals and addictive strategic gameplay that went beyond the usual Allies and Axis stuff. It just had some bad animations, a fixed resolution, and the menu was really cluttered.

Codename: Panzers, Phase Two

Release Date: 7/25/2005

Systems: PC

GameRankings: 80%

Sales: 10,000

Codename: Panzers continued to be a solid RTS franchise. The second game had more great missions, solid multiplayer, and one of the best things was that there were multiple solutions to most battles, which wasn’t like most RTS games. It did have dated graphics and a few other minor issues, but it was still solid.

Lock ‘n Load: Band of Heroes

Release Date: 8/26/2005

Systems: PC

GameRankings: N/A

Honestly, this is one of the most low-profile WWII strategy games you can find. There are no reviews for it online, it was that small of a game. I doubt this thing sold 1,000 copies. It was the video game version of the tabletop hex game. It was actually released during a game convention it was that low budget. I honestly can’t tell you how good the game is, but wargame fans should track it down.

Squad Assault: Second Wave

Release Date: 8/31/2005

Systems: PC

GameRankings: 60%

Sales: <10,000

Squad Assault fell into the mediocre range again bringing recycled content from past games. It was really just the first game but just all mixed up. It had dated graphics and was extremely difficult. Still worth a look for people who liked the first.

Blitzkrieg 2

Release Date: 10/2/2005

Systems: PC

GameRankings: 76%

Blitzkrieg 2 was popular because it was just fun and solid. It was fast-paced, had destructible environments, and looked clean. While it was technically dated (as most RTS games were back then) it was also very easy.

Strategic Command 2: Blitzkrieg

Release Date: 4/28/2006

Systems: PC

GameRankings: 62%

Strategic Command 2 was very average. It had terrible visuals, even by wargame standards, but had many scenarios and units, but the end battle outcomes were a bit confusing. This is probably only worth a look for hardcore wargame fans. Everyone else will fall asleep.

Rush for Berlin

Release Date: 6/12/2006

Systems: PC

GameRankings: 76%

Sales: <10,000

Rush for Berlin was a bit of a blessing for WWII RTS fans. It had great graphics, good AI, and amazing sound effects. It also had a great campaign and was very interesting to play. Anyone looking for an RTS game should check this out.

Moscow to Berlin: Red Siege

Release Date: 6/14/2006
Systems: PC

GameRankings: 57%

Red Siege was another flash in the pan WWII RTS game. By now the WWII craze had died down, and many gamers were tired of it. The game looked 4 years old, and it was bland and uninspired and just plain boring.

Faces of War

9/12/2006

Systems: PC

GameRankings: 66%

Sales: <10,000

Yet another WWII RTS that just looked good and forgot the rest. There were many AI problems, boring linear missions, and it just wasn’t interesting. As it is, this is just another forgotten WWII RTS game to throw into the pile.

Battlestations: Midway

Release Date: 1/30/2007

Systems: PC, X360

GameRankings:

PC — 77%

X360 — 73%

Sales:

X360 — 230,000

PC — 10,000

Battlestations was one of the last into the foray of WWII RTS games. It was highly anticipated because of the mix of strategy and action. You could control planes and subs, and it looked good. The only issue was that the game was too short, and had control issues on the Xbox 360. This is also one of the few WWII RTS games on consoles.

Blitzkrieg II: Fall of the Reich

Release Date: 2/22/2007

Systems: PC

GameRankings: 58%

Sales: <10,000

Blitzkrieg was a great underdog WWII RTS series, but the expansions totally blew it. They were insanely difficult, had control problems, and the missions were boring and derivative.

Blitzkrieg 2: Liberation

Release Date: 10/12/2007

Systems: PC

GameRankings: 58%

Sales: <10,000

Less than 6 months and another expansion are released. The more unforgiving difficulty, recycled content, and the same bad controls and missions design. Thankfully, Blitzkrieg hasn’t seen the light of day since.

Strategic Command 2: Weapons and Warfare

Release Date: 10/25/2007

Systems: PC

GameRankings: 85%

That 85% is misleading because it’s only one review. I can’t find much on this game, because the series pretty much died off and was already forgotten. This middling RTS series like Strategic Command and Blitzkrieg held on for dear life, but couldn’t make it due to the advance of PCs, the new generation of gamers, and the death of the WWII genre.

Panzer Tactics DS

Release Date: 11/6/2007

Systems: DS

GameRankings: 69%

Sales: 60,000

Wow! A wargame on the DS?! Impossible! This is the only one that exists on the system and it’s surprisingly good for the hardware’s limitations. Despite having a tiny screen, you can get a lot out of the game. It thankfully implements a thorough tutorial for the target audience, but can be very dry and has monotonous music. If you own a DS and need a wargame fix, this is your only option.

Theatre of War

Release Date: 5/19/2008

Systems: PC

GameRankings: 78%

Sales: 10,000

Theatre of War was one of the last successful WWII RTS franchises. It was very realistic down to the bullets, and wargame fans clamored for it. It was slow to start and did get boring in spots, so even casual RTS fans may balk at it. The game looked amazing (for the time it was a system hog) but the great AI and other features helped it along.

Battlestations: Pacific

Release Date: 5/12/2009

Systems: PC, X360

GameRankings:

PC — 77%

X360 — 76%

Sales:

X360 — 290,000

PC — 10,000

The short-lived Battlestations series went out with a bang thanks to its explosive action of plane and sub battles as well as the great graphics. It was well balanced and fun, some missions were just too slow to move along and it had terrible voice acting.

Theatre of War 2: Africa 1943

Release Date: 11/19/2009

Systems: PC

GameRankings: 64%

Theatre of War went downhill fast. It had great graphics, but the highly accurate battles and mechanics on the game just didn’t work out well this time around. It also had many bugs and crashes and the game was very short. Still worth a look if you liked the first one.

Theatre of War 2: Kursk 1943

Release Date: 3/9/2010

Systems: PC

GameRankings: 66%

The Theatre of War franchise dropped like a rock due to the lack of polish and the WWII genre was now a niche market. No longer were games selling in the millions, people weren’t playing them online, only the die-hard were left. I can’t find much on Kursk, due to the poor reception of Africa this one didn’t sell too well and not much was changed from the previous game.

Order of War: Challenge

Release Date: 3/11/2010

Systems: PC

GameRankings: 72%

Sales: <10,000

Challenge is a great multiplayer expansion to the original and was just solid fun. At this point in time, the WWII genre had nearly completely faded from existence and only a few remaining games were left. Order of War is worth a look if you want a solid RTS game.

History: Legends of War: Patton

Release Date: 11/6/2012

Systems: PC, PS3, X360

GameRankings:

X360 — 61%

PS3 — 60%

PC — N/A

Probably the last WWII RTS game to come out shouldn’t be surprised that it’s a dud. There’s a lot of attention to historical detail, but that’s where it stops. It has bad AI, pathfinding problems, boring missions, and it just isn’t any fun to play. It is even worse to play on consoles. There was a version for Vita that was planned but it was canceled after the unsurprising criticism.

As you can see the WWII RTS genre kept a steady run throughout the 12 years of its popularity. Around 2006 the genre started dying, but there was a peppering of hardcore tabletop-style wargames. A few franchises were flashes in the pan like Theatre of War, Codename: Panzers, Blitzkrieg, and Battlestations. None of these could stand up to the WWII RTS juggernauts.

History of History: World War II Strategy: Close Combat Series

Posted by BinaryMessiah on 06/01/2013

Posted in: Blogs, History of History: World War II. Tagged: close combat, history, pc, rts, strategy, world war ii, wwii. Leave a comment

Close Combat was another long-running RTS series that didn’t get the spotlight. The first game was revolutionary because it was one of the first that had real-time combat and smart AI. It also had a slick interface. RTS fans were proud of this game, but the series eventually fell into mediocrity like nearly every game series does.

Close Combat

Release Date: 6/30/1996 — PC

GameRankings: 91%

Close Combat was one of the first real-time strategy games and it had smart AI and a great interface to boot. This game won strategy gamers over, it also had an intuitive tutorial which was hard to come by back then. This game pretty pre-dated every other WWII strategy game and can be called one of the first. It’s funny to hear people freak out about giving orders as you go, but before this game CPUs weren’t powerful enough to handle everything in real-time, it was all turn-based.

Close Combat II: A Bridge Too Far

Release Date: 9/30/1997 — PC

GameRankings: 89%

A Bridge Too Far is as perfect as the first game. The whole “real-time” thing was still buzzing everyone’s minds, so when another game came out that had it, it was highly praised. This just goes to show that Close Combat is one of the most highly polished RTS games EVER made, yes, even more, polished than some from today. The graphics are crisp and sharp, and the map design is spot-on as well as the mission structure. Even if you hate WWII games, this is a must-play for RTS fans.

Close Combat III: Russian Front

Release Date: 12/31/1998 — PC

GameRankings: 77%

Some say this is the best game in the series. It was just when the 3D transition was starting (people actually complained about that surprisingly) and was one of the last 2D games. It still had great graphics, and the gameplay was spot on. It added some touches here and there, but if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. The missions structure and map design were superb as always. However, the opposite side was saying it’s too close to the last game and needs a serious reboot.

Close Combat IV: Battle of the Bulge

Release Date: 11/30/1999 — PC

GameRankings: 80%

The yearly releases of Close Combat were starting to take a toll on the series. The fourth game was a solid strategy game, but it didn’t have the revolutionary stuff like it did nearly four years ago. It was pretty much the same game in a different theatre of war, some fans were okay with that.

Close Combat V: Invasion: Normandy

Release Date: 10/10/2000 — PC

GameRankings: 76%

This is where Close Combat really took a nosedive. The developers didn’t want to advance the series in any way. The graphics were looking really dated and the same gameplay remained with just a new part of the war. The game still had solid AI and various other qualities from past games, but fans wanted more and they were seriously tired of marching to the same tune. The developers got the message because this was the last game in the series, and not a word was heard about it for nearly 6 years.

Close Combat: Cross of Iron

Release Date: 2/12/2007 — PC

GameRankings: 78%

Here’s how to not reboot a series, by making it the same as 10 years ago. The devs didn’t update the graphics and didn’t learn from their mistake 7 years ago. Close Combat was once a revolutionary strategy game but is now the old man in the back of the crowd that can’t be heard. This game was so unpopular that it’s hard to dig up info on it, and its sequel. The few people who did talk about it say that it’s still the same solid RTS game in another part of the war. Long-time fans may not care, but it’s a good game to jump into for newcomers.

Close Combat: Panthers in the Fog

Release Date: 11/19/2012 — PC

GameRankings: 80%

15 years later and the same formula remains. The graphics just look really good but are still 2D, and a layer of gloss was just added to the whole series. Is this the devs opus? Probably not, but why make such a dated game so far long the timeline? Fans are honestly tired of this series and why these games kept getting released is beyond me. Cross of Iron sold very few copies so what was the incentive here? The devs may also be naive to the fact that the WWII genre was pretty much dead in 2012 and was long forgotten.

Close Combat is a perfect series that shows how it can be revolutionary from the start and if it doesn’t learn new tricks it will quickly be forgotten. It was one of the first RTS games ever made, but seriously, why keep it so dated almost 15 years later? Close Combat is one of the most puzzling series as well in terms of design choices later on. It’s still one of the best RTS games that can grace you hard drive, so pick it up if you can.

History of History: World War II Strategy: Hearts of Iron Series

Posted by BinaryMessiah on 06/01/2013

Posted in: Blogs, History of History: World War II. Tagged: hearts of iron, history, pc, rts, strategy, world war ii, wwii. Leave a comment

Hearts of Iron isn’t a very flashy RTS, but it’s very deep. The entire series was a bit bumpy, it had many flaws, but was loved by hardcore RTS fans. The game allowed you to get an inside look at how WWII strategy and tactics were done. Most important of all it was addictive as ever and had a lot of features and deep research trees.

Hearts of Iron

Release Date: 11/24/2002 — PC

GameRankings: PC: 75%

The first game in the series was generally enjoyable but had a lot of flaws. It looked very generic trying to copy Europa Univeralis’s style. The menus were cluttered, the audio wasn’t qued right with actions, the AI was spotty, and it just wasn’t as polished as it could have been. It was a huge hit with strategy players and they regarded it as one of the best strategy games of the time, and the best WWII strategy game at the time. While Commandos was already long going, Hearts of Iron stole the deep tactical side of fans and the series was a hit with them.

Hearts of Iron II

Release Date: 1/4/2005 — PC

GameRankings: PC: 83%

Over two years fans had waited for a sequel and they finally got it. HoI3 is considered the best game in the series because it pretty much fixed all issues from the first game. It allowed an incredible amount of depth and gave you control of all sides of WWII. Play as the Japanese in China, or help fight the Nazis in Russia. This is what the first game should have been, but it still had a couple major issues. It was really hard to get into and was confusing for the first few hours. Most strategy games like this have a steep learning curve and require patience. The presentation looked even more dated and was way behind in terms of graphics from other strategy games. This didn’t stop fans because the series continued on.

Hearts of Iron II: Doomsday

Release Date: 4/7/2006 — PC

GameRankings: PC: 78%

With the success of the second game, Paradox release the expansion that included WWII and also part of the Cold War. It was basically Hearts of Iron II with nukes and make the game that much more intense. It still had the dated visuals and various other issues that Hearts of Iron II had, but was really solid and fun. The $20 price tag was a nice incentive, overall the game was just solid and fans who wanted more Iron II would love this.

Hearts of Iron III

Release Date: 8/11/2009 — PC

GameRankings: PC: 77%

While the WWII genre was already dead, Hearts of Iron III marched on. It finally delivered a higher-budget game with 3D graphics for once, it also addressed most of the issues from the last games. The game was pretty much redone to make you feel like a general instead of a drone by cutting back on micromanagement. The main issues were just lazy oversights like the typos in the game, translation issues, constant slow down from too many calculations in the background, and various other issues. While the old ones were fixed, new ones arose which really hurt this threequel in the end. It’s still a solid game, but fans of the series were getting bored at this point.

Hearts of Iron III: Semper Fi

Release Date: 6/7/2010 — PC

GameRankings: PC: 65%

Hearts of Iron pretty much lost all the fans as they moved on to better games. 2010 is late in the game for WWII games and Semper Fi did little to change the underlying issues of the series. It added new features, but various bugs remained that fans of the third game were fed up with. The series at this point got very little attention and even big-name game sites looked the other way. Paradox has always been known for making lesser-known strategy titles for the truly hardcore fans. Semper Fi added a fun Japanese campaign, but other than that was disappointing.

Hearts of Iron III: For the Motherland

Release Date: 6/28/2011 — PC

GameRankings: PC: 64%

Instead of concentrating on a fourth game Paradox continued with the tired, and now dead Hearts of Iron III. The game had been running for three years and there wasn’t much left to win fans over. Once again, the game fixed some previous issues but brought new ones, this time a lot of balancing issues. Many things like the US and UK have an unfair advantage because their economies are incorrectly set up and various issues like that. The game even had a scheduled third expansion that was later canceled.

Hearts of Iron was a great tabletop-style strategy game that in the end failed to keep fans interested because of the constant issues that plagued the series. Will we see another game? Maybe not because 2013 is a year where the last thing people want is another WWII strategy game. However, like Company of Heroes, if Hearts of Iron does something fantastic with the genre and series fans may come crawling back. We’re starting to see a real pattern here. Almost every WWII series has eventually driven itself into the ground. What can developers do to fix this? Not much. There’s only so much you can do with a historical event.

History of History: World War II Strategy: Commandos Series

Posted by BinaryMessiah on 05/23/2013

Posted in: Blogs, History of History: World War II. Tagged: commandos, history, pc, playstation, ps2, Sony, strategy, world war ii, wwii. Leave a comment

Commandos were one of the best strategy games of all time and one of the best WWII strategy games. Early on, Commandos was one of the few strategy games that pushed the genre forward. It was linear but allowed creativity and could be played cooperatively The game was just so well designed. The missions were varied, the pacing was great, and it was addictive. The series held up throughout its short-lived life, but strayed off to the FPS genre and didn’t do so well. What’s happening with Commandos now? No one knows. After the disastrous Strike Force in 2006, no one heard the hide or hair of the game. If you have an appetite for a great WWII strategy series, this is it.

Commandos: Behind Enemy Lines

Release Date: 7/31/1998 — PC

GameRankings: PC: 80%

Behind Enemy Lines was praised for its tight gameplay, fun mission structure, and excellent map design. It had crisp sharp 2D graphics which was rare for strategy games back then. It was really overlooked and didn’t get a spotlight, but hardcore strategy fans ate it up like candy. The game was linear but allowed room to let you do things your own way. The game was just well made and fast-paced. It didn’t have the slog of some other strategy games like Civilization. A lot of fans say this was the best in the series, but later games were also solid.

Commandos: Beyond the Call of Duty

Release Date: 3/31/1999 — PC

GameRankings: PC: 79%

The expansion for the first game was alright but added new things that kind of broke what didn’t need to be fixed. It was also more difficult and was just too much like the first game. This is usually okay, but don’t change core mechanics that don’t need to be changed. The game was just not balanced as well with too many troops to really handle or deal with, and just various other things that fans didn’t like. It wasn’t terrible but could have used improvement.

Commandos 2: Men of Courage

Release Date: 9/20/2001 — PC

GameRankings: PC: 84%

Men of Courage is considered the best one in the series by everyone. It was just bigger and better. It was in 3D and allowed a 360-degree view of the battlefield which was high-tech back then. The only problems were that it was too difficult and had some pretty bad bugs. Men of Courage was probably the most popular in the series and even went on to have a console port which was rare for RTS games. It seems Pyro hit the sweet spot with fans, what more could they do?

Commandos 2: Men of Courage

Release Date: 8/28/2002 — PS2, Xbox

GameRankings: Xbox: 74%

PS2: 71%

Sales:

PS2: 180,000

Xbox: 70,000

Commandos 2 was so popular on PC that a console port was greenlit. The biggest challenge was translating the PC controls to a controller. It was a challenge, and as decent as the controls were, just didn’t translate well. This was the biggest issue with the console version, also the resolution was lowered so the small men on screen were hard to see. The game had major camera issues, but these were only apparent to players of the PC version. Console players who never played the PC version would be none the wiser. It was a solid strategy game on consoles and one of the few good ones on PS2 and Xbox.

Commandos 3: Destination Berlin

Release Date: 10/14/03 — PC

GameRankings: PC: 74%

Destination Berlin was the long-awaited sequel to Commandos 2. With better graphics and more gameplay ideas, fans were pumped. One underlying issue plagued Commandos 3 more than the other games, it was extremely difficult to the point that people gave up on it. It had excellent graphics, some of the best at the time, but more long-running issues remained unchanged. There were some interface issues, bugs, and various AI problems. The game was fun online like before, but the game didn’t sell as well as Commandos 2 and no one heard of the series since and hasn’t for 10 years. Strike Force came out three years later, but fans raged and refused to buy the game leading to its ultimate demise.

Commandos are one of the best strategy games around and it seems Company of Heroes has picked up the torch. It offered excellent maps, missions, and extremely difficult challenges. The multiplayer was fun and the graphics and sound were good and it continued to please fans. The ultimate demise was due to poor sales in the end. It wasn’t profitable enough for Eidos and they eventually canned the series after the dreadful Strike Force FPS. If you really want an old-school strategy game and some WWII mixed in this is the way to go.

History of History: World War II Strategy: Company of Heroes Series

Posted by BinaryMessiah on 05/17/2013

Posted in: Blogs, History of History: World War II. Tagged: company of heroes, pc, relic, rts, strategy, thq, world war ii, wwii. Leave a comment

There were dozens of WWII strategy games, almost more than shooters. The strategy allowed you to see the tactical side of the way and could play out real scenarios in a more realistic manner. Many of them were boring and bad, but the king of them all is the Company of Heroes. It revolutionized the strategy genre and surprisingly pushed PCs to their limits with DirectX 10 graphics. Who would have thought a strategy game would do that? Company of Heroes had a great interface, tons of levels, addictive multiplayer, and great strategy elements. The only issue was that the game was as buggy as sin, but slowly got patched over time.

Company of Heroes

Release Date: 9/13/2006 — PC

GameRankings: PC: 93%

Sales: Unknown

Company of Heroes was a fantastic game and one of the best strategy games ever made. It was just one of the best WWII games period. It had great tactics, a wonderful interface and really showed the gritty depressing tragedy of the war. You got down to the individual tactics that only a strategy game can do. It was praised by everyone for all the great features. It also used DirectX 10 graphics and really pushed PCs to their limits, it was a benchmark game and a graphics card seller. It only received some nit-picking about long load times, a lot of bugs, and the small number of factions you could choose. Every strategy gamer needs to play this.

Company of Heroes: Opposing Fronts

Release Date: 9/24/2007 — PC

GameRankings: PC: 87%

Sales: Unknown

Opposing Fronts was the highly anticipated expansion and was received warmly. It added new factions that were really needed and a whole new campaign that was a blast to play. The destructible environments really helped push the game’s surreal atmosphere, it honestly didn’t get better than this. Bugs still remained despite being a year old, yet fans at the game up like candy.

Company of Heroes: Tales of Valor

Release Date: 4/7/2009 — PC

GameRankings: PC: 71%

Sales: Unknown

I can’t say it enough, even the best games can fall from grace. Two years was a long gap for an expansion to come out. By now people had moved on, why Relic released an expansion 18 months later is a head-scratcher. You can really feel the lack of attention to the game because the new campaign could be finished in a couple of hours and was just lacking. It only added a few new maps and was just nothing compared to the previous games. THQ must have forced Relic to make this, it also looked really dated at this point in time. It goes to show that you can’t force and rush even the best of games. The series would take a long 4 year hiatus for the next sequel.

Company of Heroes 2

Release Date: 6/25/2013

GameRankings: N/A

Sales: N/A

I know this game isn’t out yet, but the fact that a WWII game is coming out in 2013 is pretty weird and scary. Can it live up to the original game? Will it have groundbreaking graphics again using DirectX 11? It focuses on the Russian front in 1941 which will be interesting. After all these mediocre WWII strategy games have come out what else can Company of Heroes offer? June 25 will tell all.

Brothers in Arms: Road to Hill 30 – 8 Years Later

Posted by BinaryMessiah on 05/12/2013

Posted in: PC Reviews, PlayStation 2, Retro Consoles, Sony, Sony Consoles, Steam Deck Unsupported, Steam Deck Verification, Xbox. Tagged: brothers in arms, fps, gearbox software, road to hill 30, shooter, strategy, ubisoft, world war ii, wwii. Leave a comment

Publisher: Ubisoft

Developer: Gearbox Software

Release Date: 3/15/2005

Also Available On

World War II shooters were everywhere, but Ubisoft and Gearbox took a dangerous risk and released one so late in the game. 2005 was a year when WWII shooters were at their peak and when gamers hated them the most. Brothers in Arms proved to be a more authentic and smarter shooter and won fans of the genre over.

Gearbox painstakingly recreated Carentan and many parts of France where the 101st Airborne Division landed on D-Day. The game also uses squad tactics and realism unlike any other WWII shooter out there. You will notice when you play how well the guns feel when you shoot them, and how you can’t nail an enemy from 100 feet away with a Thompson. You have to flank the enemy or you die. It’s that simple and that difficult. Red circles will appear above enemy squads. You can issue commands to your squads to suppress them. Their circle will turn gray and then it is safe to move up and find cover around the area to flank them. It sounds simple, but it’s not. Your squadmates can die and so can you if you aren’t careful. You have to watch out for MG fire which will kill you in an instant, and sometimes even tanks.

This realism and authenticity can’t be done without good AI and BiA delivers and is even impressive today. The only issue I had with AI was with tanks. Sometimes they wouldn’t go around each other or go the other way to follow a command. The game also requires a lot of patience. Sometimes even trial and error. You can’t just rush every enemy like in Call of Duty and save the day. You can order squads to rush and attack while your other squad suppresses, then you can charge in with them to kill them all. You can also order squads and set positions that you want so you have total control. It feels good and is a key part of the game. Without mastering this you won’t get very far.

screenshot_pc_brothers_in_arms_road_to_hill_30009

You also can’t just use an M1 Garand and snipe an enemy’s head while he’s in cover. It just doesn’t work that way, you also can’t kill an MG unless you flank them. This isn’t Medal of Honor. This gave a great feeling of realism, but it was also very difficult. I died quite often because I chose the wrong tactic or I flanked the wrong way. Sometimes my impatience got in the way as well. I even found different weapons to help in certain situations. When I finally got the Springfield sniper rifle it was a weapon from God. After all the inaccurate weapons that couldn’t hit crap, this thing made life easier, but only for a few levels at the end.

When it comes to looks, BiA looks great even to this day. The lighting looks real, the grass flows, and the models and textures are pretty high-res (for back then) you will be impressed. The game holds up and is still better than a lot of shooters today. My main concern is that the game feels the same throughout. I just went around killing everything and maybe planted a few charges. I could mount an MG sometimes, and ride the back of a tank, but overall there wasn’t much variety in the game which I find the biggest issue.

What’s here is one of the most authentic shooters around and fans of the genre won’t be disappointed at all. The game looks great, has smart AI, and tells a sad story of Baker Company and the 101st Airborne.