Mud and Blood 2

[APSMS 1,892]

I used to play a lot of Flash Games in High School and Middle School. Not to many of them have aged well. The fact that a lot of flash games make my PC go nuts and are heavily oriented towards making money nowadays has turned me off from many of them, but there is one that stuck with me that was unlike the rest in its scope and focus.

Mud and Blood 2.

Play it with the sound on. Playing at school during off hours, in the days before ubiquitous earbuds, I often did not listen to the sounds, but not only are they immersive, but the audio cues you in very much to what might not be obvious just from watching the screen. Of course, many of you familiar with gaming might choose to listen to the sound right away, but it should be said that the number of console games I have owned in my lifetime totals exactly zero, and for years the only game I owned that was not a Jumpstart game (remember those?) was SC4, which is not exactly a game where listening to the sound is a necessary part of the experience.

It really struck me because not only did it receive constant updates (final version released was in 2015) since initial release in 2008, but it was one of those games where you can only ever lose. Except not.

The point of the game was not to receive an ever higher score (though surviving longer did provide more perks that in turn helped you survive longer, but only just), but to try out new tactics and explore what the game had to offer. You had to outdo yourself, as all score-based games without an ending end up being in terms of gameplay (you can never win Tetris, for instance), but because the game was totally and completely random (and unfair, and brutal, which makes sense given the dev's nickname URB, for unfair random brutality), you needed to prepare yourself for all outcomes, and no one solution would guarantee success in any single particular area.

The game defines itself as a sandbox WWII defense game. It's played top down, and is essentially a wave-based RTS. You don't directly control your units' targets, nor is supply a real issue (although you still get supply crates, which do...other things).

Moral is a key factor, and your units will frequently ignore your orders (like not moving right away) until the combat situation is favorable...or not. Friendly fire is also a thing--a very brutal factor at that. Units can get pinned by suppressing fire, cower in fear under the enemy onslaught, get wrecked in CQC or even flee the battlefield if a high ranking soldier dies amongst them and their morale becomes unrecoverable.

It has a complete wiki here, which I only recommend reading after you play it at least a few times (I recommend about 10, though I didn't find this wiki until years after I discovered the game; there are a lot of hidden mechanics that will make the game immediately more understandable and enjoyable, though I did enjoy it immensely before discovering all the hidden bits). Very few of the graphics in the game are for show, with the exception of weird things on the ground like sand pits and fallen trees; craters act as temporary trenches for minor bullet protection, and rocks block both LoS and explosion AoE.

As a rule ahead of time, if you happen to end up playing the game, avoid having more than 6 men exposed on the field at any one moment (not under a camnet or bunker or other hard structure) as doing so will make the game significantly more miserable than it already is, particularly for a newer player.

There is some [cartoonish] gore, and some of the soundbytes have profanity (I think more if you understand German, which I do not), though the text of the game itself is 98% clean.

I know this is kind of a weird game to post in the forum, but there is so much attention lavished on paid full platform games, and so little given to honestly solid efforts like this one (a sequel is in the works) that are completely free. Almost no [proper] reviews of the game can be found written by non-fans and I figure if someone here can get as much enjoyment out of it as I have (or even just a little bit), then it's a good post, especially since the thing is completely free, and anyways, since when was blowing up a bunch of virtual Nazis not a satisfying experience?

[MeMyself&I 379]

I've always loved playing older wargames, especially strategy based ones.  I grew up with Avalon Hill Bookcase games with boards and pieces and countless hours of agonizing mathematics to make moves.  Games like Panzer Blitz, Blitzkrieg, Axis and Allies, etc.  Matrix Games has all of them in digital versions now and many, many more.  They aren't free, however, but they are the ultimate in strategy wargames of all genres.  Anyone who has an interest in that type of game should check it out (and feel free to pm me if you'd like someone to play them with ).  My favorites are World at War and the Europe in Flames series - East Front, West Front, Rising Sun.  After a while the AI is relatively predictable but the games are amazing when played head to head or via email, like chess.  Nothing compares to outwitting a real opponent who is anything but predictable and the stats and equipment info are incredibly realistic and accurate.

I will check out MAB2 as I also like flash games but I've never found a good flash wargame.  It sounds great!  Thanks for sharing.

[APSMS 1,892]

2 hours ago, MeMyself&I said:

Nothing compares to outwitting a real opponent who is anything but predictable and the stats and equipment info are incredibly realistic and accurate.

Well, I wouldn't necessarily cal MnB2 exceptionally realistic, but it does feel authentic if that makes any sense.

Playing as a squad commander in the Battle of the Bulge, nothing feels more hopeless than having a tank roll into view and you have no antitank soldiers, or really any other way to deal with it.

Similarly, all guns fire "at the same rate" but differ in burst and reload. Every weapon can do as little as 1 damage when the target is hit. There is no ammo supplies (or any other supplies), though weapons still need to reload. Flamer units explode if shot in the tank (not likely to happen in real life), but fire does spread, and dangerously so, and affects morale more than any other kind of death.

Really, though the part that always struck me was how, even in completely calm situations, your units hesitate, and frequently make questionable decisions, which would be untenable in a multiplayer game against human players, but feels very honest when going up against AI. You cannot treat your men like units to be discarded, because there are morale penalties for deaths on the battlefield, and again this works to prevent the minmaxing that can often be seen in other wargames.

Of course, like I mentioned, since you only play the AI this works very well, whereas against humans this would be exceptionally frustrating, but I don't think it takes away from the experience.

[MeMyself&I 379]

1 hour ago, APSMS said:

You cannot treat your men like units to be discarded, because there are morale penalties for deaths on the battlefield, and again this works to prevent the minmaxing that can often be seen in other wargames.

That is the difference between games like Squad Leader (squad and platoon level) vs World at War (company, regiment, division level) .  The sgts, lts, and capts have to deal with morale in the face of battle right then and there much moreso than majors, colonels or generals so it's a good factor in that type of game.  Morale is always a huge component of any successful wargame, IMO, because it's just a very real thing in the heat of battle and can make all the difference.  The elite troops ie; paratroopers, Rangers, SS, etc always have a higher base morale fixed in the game and, like all other stats it varies accordingly during battle and good leaders (which have their own stats) can affect morale as well as efficiency of units.  Even in a campaign which entails several different battles, morale can follow a unit into the next fray.  Those are the things I find interesting in strategy wargames as opposed to shooters where everyone is a hero.

 

1 hour ago, APSMS said:

Well, I wouldn't necessarily cal MnB2 exceptionally realistic, but it does feel authentic if that makes any sense.

Yes, it makes perfect sense.  Graphics aren't as important to me - heck, most of the games I named were board games at the start so there were no graphics.  The digital versions have graphics but they're not on par with any shooters - not by a longshot.  Don't have to be either.  I like the numbers and stats that dictate strategy more than action in many cases.  I like the cartoony look of MnB2 also.  Reminds me a little of other flash games like bloons tower defense which is hysterical fun!  I haven't played it yet but I did look at it briefly.  I will give it a go soon.  I'm always up for trying wargames of any type, especially WWII genre.