Men of War: Assault Squad PC

User Score
8.2

Generally favorable reviews- based on 94 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 73 out of 94
  2. Negative: 9 out of 94
Buy On

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Mar 31, 2014
    7
    It's more of the same, not to mention that it doesn't have a campaign. They didn't change what the community asked. I will give it a 7 because Men of War is the best RTS game I've ever played.
  2. Jan 25, 2014
    7
    While there are many improvements over the original men of war, the singleplayer missions are very repetitive and some maps feel recycled. Many of the new additions that came with the game were already available from mods for the original men of war. The multiplayer however is much better. So if you are someone who wants to play multiplayer only then get this game.
  3. Jun 14, 2012
    6
    There are two main games in the WW2 RTS genre; Company of Heroes and Men at War. The former is by far the easiest. I rate Men of War's difficulty at about 8/10 on Hard difficulty, it's not impossible to beat but if you're playing on the highest difficulty setting and don't have any friends for co-op you WILL find it impossible unless you are a professional gamer. So you might be thinkingThere are two main games in the WW2 RTS genre; Company of Heroes and Men at War. The former is by far the easiest. I rate Men of War's difficulty at about 8/10 on Hard difficulty, it's not impossible to beat but if you're playing on the highest difficulty setting and don't have any friends for co-op you WILL find it impossible unless you are a professional gamer. So you might be thinking this game would make a great challenge, and yes it is, but not in gameplay. The challenge lies in mastering the faulty interface and micromanaging your units. Some battles might have hundreds of units and trying to do this gets extremely frustrating, especially because your units are highly expendable and will die like flies if you leave them alone during an attack. There are no controls for coordinating your attacks or directing your units other than to point and click, and you will be doing a lot of pointing and clicking because if you leave it up to the AI you will lose immediately. This is made more awkward by the lack of an interactive mini-map, you will have to click, scrolls, click, click, scroll and it gets tedious really fast. The game does have its positives; the micromanagitis means your have a huge influence on the battle and placing the right unit in the right place will often make a big difference. There is a large range of army, motorised and artillery units at your disposal and there are often several ways around a problem with different units and difference tactics. It's fun to out-manoeuvre, out gun and out flank a defending army but the bad interface slows down gameplay and breaks the flow, tearing your out of that immersive General's chair. It really does feel like your struggling more against the game's mechanics than the actual game. Despite all this, the game deserves a relatively good score because it is a good game. It is unique, fresh and for once it doesn't feel like someone is holding your hand guiding your through they game experience. It's just lacking a lot of polish and a bit of story. If you are veteran of Company of Heroes or strategy games then go for Men of War, if not be prepared for a learning curve resembling brick wall but lot of fun to be had if you do manage to climb over it. Expand
  4. Jan 8, 2012
    6
    Is this game good? Well it is. So why just 6/10? Because it could have been better, MUCH better. Due to terrible interface, every single battle is chaotic and random. Due to poor AI, you need to micromanage everything, down to controlling individual units. Due to poor optimization, you need to have super-powerful PC to not suffer 10 FPS after just 15 minutes of playing. All theseIs this game good? Well it is. So why just 6/10? Because it could have been better, MUCH better. Due to terrible interface, every single battle is chaotic and random. Due to poor AI, you need to micromanage everything, down to controlling individual units. Due to poor optimization, you need to have super-powerful PC to not suffer 10 FPS after just 15 minutes of playing. All these frustrate, especially in multiplayer with fog of war. I could look the other way around if this was first game in series, but it is not. Expand
  5. Jul 31, 2011
    6
    I enjoyed it, but not nearly as much as the previous two games. Assault Squad offers little new to the series, other than new keyboard shortcuts, that will require you to re-learn what you knew before. It feels more polished, and, as a result, it has lost that beautiful charm that the original had. The single player is just for show, as each map is identical to the last, and it's becomeI enjoyed it, but not nearly as much as the previous two games. Assault Squad offers little new to the series, other than new keyboard shortcuts, that will require you to re-learn what you knew before. It feels more polished, and, as a result, it has lost that beautiful charm that the original had. The single player is just for show, as each map is identical to the last, and it's become simply a series of random skirmishes. It feels more balanced, and hence units just feel too similar (if that makes sense?). It's fun, but it just fades in comparison to the vanilla Men of War. Expand
  6. Jun 14, 2011
    10
    For me the game is just nice. Although there is not many improvements comparing with previous parts of Men Of War indeed, the game has nicer graphics, runs much more smoothly than even the first part of MoW, and gives us some more options to use in fight. However, some new options could be added (eg. digging trenches, different camouflages, some better interface (if we have over 30 unitsFor me the game is just nice. Although there is not many improvements comparing with previous parts of Men Of War indeed, the game has nicer graphics, runs much more smoothly than even the first part of MoW, and gives us some more options to use in fight. However, some new options could be added (eg. digging trenches, different camouflages, some better interface (if we have over 30 units in the battle, including artillery and tanks, we need really some seconds to discover where our unit is and to control it using it's picture in the interface. Pros:
    Nice feeling of II WW
    Nice graphics
    Nice sounds
    The best tactical RTS now

    Contras:
    Nothing new
    Some more options could be added
    Not the best interface
    Only few maps in Frontline mode
    Collapse
Metascore
77

Generally favorable reviews - based on 21 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 13 out of 21
  2. Negative: 0 out of 21
  1. 70
    In no way an easy game, and probably an overwhelming experience for most people, but also the closest thing we'll get to the battles of WWII without a time machine.
  2. LEVEL (Czech Republic)
    May 22, 2011
    70
    Interesting, although limited development of good RTS towards multiplayer. This game is not a groundbreaker but if you like playing cooperative military action games it has a great potential to entertain you. [Issue#203]
  3. May 19, 2011
    70
    A well rounded multiplayer extension of the classic Men of War formula, hurt most by technical issues and a steep learning curve. Worth a look for fans of the series.