Blitzkreig 2: Fall of the Reich Review

Comes with free cyanide pill for your dog.

Version tested: PC

Would every games reviewer that has ever started a review of a WW2 RTS with a sentence along the lines of "Oh God, not another WW2 RTS!" please go and stand next to that precipice over there.

Keep going. Keep going. Fantastic, that's perfect.

Right, now I'd like you all to stand really really still while my assistant here (Hans) removes the tarpaulin from this tripod-mounted Machinengewehr 42, gets comfortable, and commences firing.

Away you go Hans.

BRRRRRRRP-BRRRRRRRRP BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRP. BRRRP-BRRRP.

Excellent. Thanks for your co-operation folks. This has been a public information massacre on behalf of the You-probably wouldn't-bash-a-sci-fi-or-fantasy-RTS-on-the-basis-of-its-subject-matter -so-please-refrain-from-doing-the-same-when-faced-with-a-WW2-RTS Society. Now, we can get on with the review.

Honey, I shrunk the Honey

You'll have gathered from the above that I'm one of those charming eccentrics that's still enthusiastic about games featuring shrunken Shermans and titchy Tiger tanks. Recent titles like Company of Heroes and Faces of War prove this well-stocked sub-genre still has a lot left to give as long as designers find an original angle, evoke the drama, or deliver a sufficiently rich tactical experience. Just because developers occasionally fail in all of these areas, serving-up tired, forgettable mediocrities like this sad standalone expansion pack for Blitzkrieg 2, doesn't mean the theme itself is worn out.

'Blitzkreig 2: Fall of  the Reich' Screenshot 1

SS troops celebrated Christmas by draping frosty fir trees with entrails. Fact.

Fall of the Reich manages to be about as eye-catching as Stalingrad super-sniper Vasily Zaitsev by foolishly setting both its campaigns on the Eastern front during the final phase of WW2, introducing bugger-all in the way of new unit types, and adding no significant gameplay enhancements. BK2 veterans perusing the feature list will be struck by the chronic lack of ambition, newcomers, the startling lack of variety. One of the most appealing aspects of the now-budget-priced parent game was the wide selection of theatres and playable powers it offered. In addition to the rubbled towns and churned fields of Europe, battles raged through sweaty Asian jungles and desiccated African deserts. On reflection perhaps Nival should have held back some of these exotic settings for this add-on.

The two campaigns we've got here are inspired by the costly last-ditch defence of Kurland (Hitler orders a pointless defence of present-day Latvia) and Operation Bagration (the Soviets smash through Byelorussia into Poland). Missions are all prefabricated but there's limited choice in the sequence order thanks to a simple map-based selection system. Fail a scenario and you can come back to it later with a better choice of reinforcements (each victory adds new unit types to the reserves roster). Whether you'll actually want to return is another matter.

Poor bloody infantry

Here's how a typical FotR scenario plays out. See if you like the sound of it.

After a short text briefing (sadly, no empathy-enhancing cut-scenes here) you usually find yourself hovering kestrel-like above a road, field, or wood in which sits a gaggle of expectant infantry squads and armour. Ahead, obscured by grey murk, is your objective - often a village, town, bridge or railway station. Grabbing some grunts you move off. Within seconds this doomed vanguard spots and is spotted by trench-cowering defenders, sandbagged AT guns and waiting armour. Quickly you call in artillery and SPG bombardments and desperately try to withdraw what's left of your recon force. The stonk arrive almost instantaneously. Explosions stomp up and down the enemy line like giant invisible elephants. Eventually you get bored of indirect death-dealing and send your infantry up again with clusters of tanks in close support. More explosions, health bars melt like icicles on burning eves, vehicles grind to a halt, buildings crumble into rubble. Stillness returns.

'Blitzkreig 2: Fall of  the Reich' Screenshot 1

Another village, another ambush.

Before you advance towards the next knot of trenches, guns, and tanks, there's time to use the reinforcement menu (usually you can do this half-a-dozen times during a scenario) and bring forward your precious repair trucks (not always available). Most of your riflemen and submachine-gunners were slaughtered in that last exchange but as a troop of tanks are just as cheap as a troop of infantry it's tempting to restock solely with armour. With repairs complete and recruits ctrl-grouped the circus moves on.

Mission attrition

It would be misleading to suggest that every mission follows this grinding pattern (there are defensive and infantry-focussed episodes too) but many - too many - do. Some maps seem to have enemy AT guns on every street corner and tanks in every alley. The resulting scenarios have their moments of tension and excitement, but ultimately don't offer anything particularly distinctive or interesting to those of us that have been stewarding Shermans since the first Sudden Strike and Close Combat. Realism-wise Nival has gone to the trouble of ensuring tank types come with the right armour thicknesses in the right places, but this effort is undermined by the implausibly short view ranges, while-you-wait repairs, and barely noticeable morale modelling. FotR won't teach you anything about real WW2 tactics that you can't learn from a Commando comic.

So let's recap. What does a WW2 RTS need to succeed these days? One or more of the following certainly helps: drama, realism, tactical intricacy, an original angle, the odd change of scenery and pace. Which of these qualities does FotR possess? Erm... if you can find a multiplayer opponent that agrees to show moderation when it comes to purchasing tanks and artillery, and doesn't mind playing the same four maps over and over again then I guess you could make a case for 'tactical intricacy'. Hardly a glowing endorsement. Wise WW2 strategy gamers will stick with Company of Heroes and Faces of War for the moment, saving their pennies for imminent releases like Close Combat: Cross of Iron (the daddy of real-time wargaming gets a well-deserved refit) and Theatre of War (a promising ex-Codemasters project originally monikered Battlefield Command finally gets a release thanks to the good folk that make Combat Mission).

4 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy

Comments (19) Latest comment 5 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • siro #1 5 years ago

    Is the game really named Blitzkreig? Because 'kreig' means, err... nothing I could think of, but 'krieg' = war.
  • NemesisZero #2 5 years ago

    You're right, siro.
    Also, it's "Maschinengewehr", not "Machinengewehr". Two typoes that went by the monolingual proofreaders, I'd guess.
  • Carrybagma #3 5 years ago

    And the screenshots are the same.
  • holy_bazooka #4 5 years ago

  • PhakeDC #5 5 years ago

    I played BK2 and it was the dullest RTS I tried in ages. Watching others play it was even more painful. Thankfully we have CoH now
  • Dr.Mott #6 5 years ago

    What is it with all these game with the suffix "of War?"
  • space_ace #7 5 years ago

    wait a minute, ze second screenshot is like ze first one! like the colleague pointed out
  • spit #8 5 years ago

    I wish WW3 broke out. That would end the monotony. A whole new, global-appeal setting for games!

    This is not cynicism. This is a public information message on behalf of the
    You-probably-wouldn't-bash-a-sci-fi-or-fantasy-comment-
    on-the-basis-of-its-subject-matter-so-please-refrain-from- doing-the-same-when-faced-with-a-65-year-old-massacre-
    themed-comment Society.

    What a nasty opening paragraph. Way to imply that games have no cultural relevance.

    Why do people bother to comment on a game's subject matter ? It's all brainless entertainment anyways.
    Who cares if the screaming blot of red pixels used to stand for some imaginary alien scum or for your own great-grandfather ? There's no fun to be had thinking about it.

    Granted, war becomes a fantasy setting as soon as some people fantasise about it. Yet it is not the same as a mushroom-princess rescue operation.

    Of course the author is entitled to his opinion about over-indulgence in war scenarii in games, though I cannot regard it as particularly smart. It is ironic -yet fitting and obviously purposeful- that the argument would take the form of a fun-filled slaughter soaked in war aesthetics : They are idiots. I use german words that I can't spell. They die. They shut up now. Haha.

    Ultimately, his job is to entertain when he expresses his opinion. My hobby is to make stern comments in the hope of someone being interested in reading them.

    Isn't it awesome.
  • BremXJones #9 5 years ago

    Spit: Do you actually understand what Oliver was actually on about or are you getting angry about something he didn't say?

    Clue: It's the latter.

    KG
  • spit #10 5 years ago

    Err... Please explain? Just saying "you're wrong" does not help much.
  • marilena #11 5 years ago

    He said that in no way did the review suggest that games have no cultural relevance.

    What the guy said was that being set in World War II does not make a game bad, which is a fair comment. Many people bash World War II as a setting a lot and it's somewhat unfair.

    Your argument is very strange anyway, because what you say more or less supports the reviewer's opinion, which seems to be that WW2 is a relevant cultural reference, worthy of being treated in games.
  • spit #12 5 years ago

    Thank you for the precise reply :)

    I completely agree with the point that WW2 is -potentially- a suitable setting for a game and I understand that the reviewer does too. Though we seem to have very different opinions about what that potential entails.

    I grew sick of the subject being misused as a well-designed theater for power fantasies long before I got sick of other reviewers pointing it out. That part of the theme is worn-out. It has become a brand. Lazy design. It deserves bashing, if only because gamers getting tired of it means that the events are being banalised.

    While I will admit gracefully that a WW2 game can be good, the setting noticeably works against it. The review only mentions originality, drama, and tactical gameplay as redeeming values. What about the message ? The talk is clearly about being entertained.

    This is why I ranted about cultural relevance in the first place.

    Finally, the review also chose to play with the setting only to indulge into the same rut of shooting people with german soundbites. There might be originality and drama here, but that does not really make it for me. And since I draw a clear line between history and and sci-fi/fantasy genocides I ~might~ have felt a bit targeted. :/

    Obviously my earlier comment was not clear enough. My apologies.
  • Bezzy #13 5 years ago

    I normally just say "oh no, not another RTS game in general". Don't matter if it's made of mud monsters or unicorns. I will fucking CALL that shit on being an RTS. STOP BEING RTS GAMES, RTS GAMES!
  • Red-Moose #14 5 years ago

    Hmm. Is this the sequel to Blitzkrieg: May 1940, circa 1991?
  • YourMessageHere #15 5 years ago

    Kind of with you there Spit. I especially dig the idea of "WWII as brand".

    WWII is an instant turn off to me because I don't have an interest in playing a game set then/there. I can't at this point construct a complete reasoned argument for this objection; maybe I'm bored with it, maybe I feel it does belittle the people who died in this war, maybe it just seems too limited when you look at what a game could do. But I definitely know that I believe many (but not all) developers use WWII to take the easy route, rather than design their own world or use more original source material.

    The point is, I'm happy to acknowledge that a game set in WWII can be excellent, I just hate the setting and I can't see that that setting specifically is so crucial to the excellence of the game. CoH, for example, I'm tempted by as every other Relic game has really appealed to me, but I've avoided it because of the setting. However, there's nothing I've read about it that makes the gameplay actually depend on the setting intrinsically; it could be set elsewhere without suffering, and WWII is simply a cypher for the gameplay mechanics. I'm not necessarily in favour of sci-fi either, and the only thing I hate more than a WWII setting is generic fantasy. But there's loads more settings out there.

    I don't see that it's wrong to be tired of WWII games because of the many terrible examples. I don't like pink clothes, but some pink clothes are really technically good quality, and they're in fashion presently. I'd just rather have clothes of good quality that aren't pink, and I'm tired of finding pink clothes in shops; why shouldn't I say I'm sick of pink clothes.

    Edt: "reawlly"? O RLY?
    Edited by 1 at 19/11/06 @ 00:48
  • OliverClare #16 5 years ago

    "While I will admit gracefully that a WW2 game can be good, the setting noticeably works against it. The review only mentions originality, drama, and tactical gameplay as redeeming values. What about the message ?"

    Which 'message' about war did you have in mind Spit?

    War is pain and suffering? War is exhilarating? War is necessary? War turns boys into men? War turns men into monsters? No greater love has a man than to lay down his life for his friends? The German army was full of moral cowards and racists? The Russian army was full of thieves and rapists? Some members of the SS were brainwashed innocents, most were beasts? RAF bomber crews were heroes? RAF bomber crews were war criminals?..

    How exactly is a tactical RTS with a 12+ certificate supposed to convey profound truths about war?

    Apologies if my massacre intro offended you. If you can supply me with a list of historical events/situations that I shouldn't make fun of in future reviews I'll do my best to avoid them.
  • spit #17 5 years ago

    How exactly is a tactical RTS with a 12+ certificate supposed to convey profound truths about war?

    Assuming 12-year olds cannot hear about serious issues on account of all the violence and xenophobia, it seems a bit contradictory to tell them about WW2 - unless the focus is on the military aesthetics and marketing potential.


    a list of historical events/situations that I shouldn't make fun of in future reviews

    War : OK
    Genocide : OK
    People who are tired of WW2 in games (more generally people like me) : not OK

    Oh, well. Do as you like. You may get critical feedback when you make fun of an opinion shared by a fraction of your audience - it is not intended as a censorship operation. I honestly do not believe that one of us is "right" while the other is "wrong".
  • Corben_Dallas #18 5 years ago

    German 101

    BlitzKrieg literally means ‘lighting war’ or fast war which was pioneered by the Germans, used first with the invasion of Poland, where they drove divisions quickly to their objectives, with air support and not stopping or reinforcing until they got there.

    I thank you :D

    Plus Blitzkrieg2 will prob be good but CLOSE COMBAT: CROSS OF IRON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! When’s it out???????? So glad someone picked up the franchise.
    :)
  • Svecke #19 5 years ago

    Is there a way to prevent reviews of certain reviewers to show up on the front page, much like you can ignore posters in the comments section? If not, it would be super-swell if it could be implemented. Thank you.