Men of War: Assault Squad 2 – Cold War

Men of War: Assault Squad 2 – Cold War is a real-time strategy expansion to the acclaimed Men of War series, transporting the action to the tense era of the Cold War where players take direct command of U.S. or Soviet soldiers and vast armies in dynamic singleplayer campaigns, co-op missions, and online multiplayer battles, featuring detailed unit control, era-specific weaponry, and tactical wargame depth.

Men of War: Assault Squad 2 – Cold War: Review

Introduction

In the shadow of nuclear brinkmanship, where proxy wars simmered and superpowers stared each other down across the Iron Curtain, the Cold War conjures images of tense standoffs, technological arms races, and the ever-present dread of mutual annihilation. It’s a setting ripe for real-time strategy games, evoking titles like World in Conflict that masterfully blended spectacle with strategy. Enter Men of War: Assault Squad 2 – Cold War, a 2019 standalone expansion to the cult-favorite WWII RTS series, daring to transplant its gritty, unit-level tactics into this alternate-history hot war. Developed by Digitalmindsoft, it promises dynamic campaigns, direct control of individual soldiers, and clashes between U.S. and Soviet forces amid ruined cities and frozen villages. Yet, for all its ambitious pivot, this entry stumbles badly—trapped in a time warp of reused assets, buggy execution, and half-baked innovation. As a historian of the genre, I see it as a tragic missed opportunity: a game with the bones of greatness, but flesh rotten from neglect, cementing its place as a footnote in the Men of War legacy rather than a bold evolution.

Development History & Context

Digitalmindsoft GmbH, a small German studio founded in 2006 by Christian Kramer, has been the steward of the Men of War series since taking over development duties from 1C Company. Kramer wore multiple hats on Cold War—managing director, project lead, and game design lead—overseeing a lean team of 23 credits, including programmers like Thomas Bothe and artists such as Verena Gruse. Published by Fulqrum Publishing (under 1C Entertainment), the game launched on September 12, 2019, for Windows via Steam at $19.99, positioned as a standalone expansion to 2014’s Assault Squad 2 (AS2).

The early 2010s RTS landscape was unforgiving: giants like StarCraft II dominated esports, while historical sims like Company of Heroes 2 emphasized cinematic campaigns. Men of War carved a niche with its “direct control” mechanic—possessing individual units for third-person action—rooted in Soviet-era gems like Blitzkrieg. By 2019, however, the genre leaned toward hybrids (They Are Billions) or MOBAs, and Cold War settings were rare post-World in Conflict (2007). Digitalmindsoft aimed to refresh AS2’s aging 32-bit engine with a 64-bit upgrade for smoother performance, introducing dynamic campaign generation for replayability. Technological constraints were modest—DirectX 11 minimum, 8GB RAM—but the studio’s tiny scale (evident in shared credits with Call to Arms) meant heavy asset recycling from WWII titles and Men of War: Vietnam. Pre-launch hype via announcement trailers focused on U.S. vs. USSR spectacle, but launch-day patches (e.g., September 6) hinted at rushed QA, fixing exploits while introducing crashes. In a post-Hearts of Iron IV era of moddable grand strategy, Cold War felt like a relic, prioritizing skirmish familiarity over reinvention.

Narrative & Thematic Deep Dive

Narrative? What narrative? Cold War discards scripted storytelling for a “dynamic campaign generator,” billed as a series first for “nearly endless experiences.” Players select U.S. or Soviet sides, tweak difficulty/resources/fog of war, build an army deck, and plunge into a Risk-like progress bar of randomized skirmishes. Each “day” is a self-contained battle on map strips (from five total locales), with victory tallied by win count after a set length—extendable to infinite mode. No plot explains the hot war’s spark: no Cuban Missile Crisis gone nuclear, no Berlin flashpoint, no characters or dialogue beyond grunt barks like “For Uncle Sam!” (unchanged from WWII games).

Thematically, it’s a void. Cold War motifs—ideological clash, proxy dread, tech escalation—are absent. Factions mirror each other: identical infantry squads (Soviets inexplicably wielding WWII SVT-40s alongside AKs), near-symmetric tanks (M4A4 Sherman vs. T-34/85, ignoring U.S. post-WWII retirement). Historical anachronisms abound: M24 Chaffees dueling T-55s circa 1963? BMP-1s as “early tanks”? It’s ahistorical fanfic, evoking Codename: Panzers – Cold War‘s what-if vibe without justification. No themes of deterrence failure or arms race; just resource-grinding loops. Co-op amplifies this emptiness, turning campaigns into shared grinds. As a historian, this betrays the series’ roots in detailed WWII theaters (Red Tide, Condemned Heroes), reducing geopolitics to a coin flip. Prima Games nailed it: “beyond such petty mortal concerns”—a campaign worse than Napoleon’s Russia, all pretense stripped.

Gameplay Mechanics & Systems

At its core, Cold War refines AS2’s hybrid RTS-tactics loop: macro army management meets micro direct control. Build decks via a single “resources” pool and command points (CP) for waves—early 50 CP, scaling up. Deploy via manual spawns on narrow map strips (destroyed cities, border zones, airbases, farmlands, winter villages). Modes shine here:

Core Loops & Combat

• Dynamic Campaign/Skirmish: Randomized maps/objectives (1-2 checkpoints early). Capture/hold flags in Assault Zones; rack kills/base raids in Annihilation (2v2/4v4 AI/multiplayer up to 8v8). Helicopters (Chinook flanks!), jets, ATGMs add verticality—yet helos die to T-34s, rifles mimic SMGs.
• Direct Control: Genre-defining gem. Possess infantry for looting pockets, tanks for manual aiming, or squads for RPG ambushes. Overlapping MG firezones, repairs, resupply via trucks/APCs reward precision.
• Progression/UI: Post-battle refits; Hardcore mode drops health bars for sim damage (flawed—M113s tank 76mm hits). UI is fiddly: cluttered, no tutorial (just tips), steep curve alienates newcomers.

Flaws cripple it. AI cheats via unit hordes (79 infantry conga-lines on Ultra), pathfinding fails (stuck units), balance favors U.S. (Soviets struggle skirmishes). Waves are manual theater; no auto-deploy. Steam Workshop/level editor tease mods, but launch bugs—campaign crashes post-battle (losses only), loading hiccups—render dynamic mode “unplayable” (High Ground Gaming). No faction asymmetry; arcade health over penetration sim. High Ground praises tactical depth (“superb”), CyberPowerPC replayability, but Prima decries “zero effort”: smoke grenades axed, no warfare evolution. Verdict: Innovative bones, broken execution—fun in skirmish bites, frustrating marathons.

World-Building, Art & Sound

Settings evoke Cold War paranoia—fortified borders, nuked airbases, sleepy villages—but five maps feel sparse, stretched via strips. Visuals: Detailed 3D units (zoom/rotate previews), explosions pop, but reused WWII/Vietnam assets scream laziness (DP LMGs in 1960s?). Engine upgrade yields smooth 64-bit performance, yet archaic UI/health bars clash. Uniforms mix Korea-Vietnam eras (M1 Garands to M16s), immersive yet inaccurate.

Sound excels: Bullets crack concrete, treads crush fences, multilingual cries (English/Russian) heighten chaos. Dynamedion’s score underscores tension; no stale Stalin chants. Atmosphere builds via firestorms, but bugs (falling through roofs) shatter immersion. As world-building, it’s skin-deep: no persistent war scars, just procedural filler. Contributes viscerally to micro-moments, but fails macro cohesion.

Reception & Legacy

Launch was a bloodbath: Steam “Mostly Negative” (26% of 1,230 reviews), Metacritic 41/100 (4 critics: PC Invasion 20/100 calls it “cash grab”; Games.cz “below-averageness”). Users lambast AI/pathfinding (“rubbish”), content drought (“sub-mod”), price (“overpriced empty shell”). Prima: “trash asset flip”; High Ground 5.7/10 (“embarrassing mess”); CyberPowerPC 72% outlier praises mechanics. MobyGames: No reviews, 11 collectors.

Commercially modest ($1.99 sales now), legacy sours the series. Pre-Cold War AS2/DLCs thrived on mods/community; this stalled momentum, paving Men of War II (2024). Influences? Reinforces direct control’s niche (echoed in Call to Arms), but warns against rushed expansions. No industry ripple—Steel Division 2 bettered Cold War RTS. Evolved rep: Bargain-bin curiosity for vets, cautionary tale for indies.

Conclusion

Men of War: Assault Squad 2 – Cold War ignites Cold War what-ifs with direct control brilliance and skirmish thrills, but extinguishes them via bugs, AI idiocy, historical farce, and narrative vacuum. Dynamic campaigns promise infinity, deliver grindy repetition on skeletal maps. Digitalmindsoft’s passion shines in tactics, drowned by laziness. In RTS history, it joins Stronghold syndrome victims—stagnant remixes. Skip; replay AS2 or await Men of War II. Verdict: 4/10—a frozen relic, unworthy of the series’ storied platoon.