Combat Mission Shock Force 2

About

Combat Mission Shock Force 2 is a tactical war game that simulates modern ground combat. Players command a variety of military units and vehicles in battles set in the Middle East, using real-world weapons and equipment. With a focus on realism and strategy, the game offers a challenging and immersive experience for fans of military simulations.

Genres & Tags

Play Modes

Local Multi-Player Play with friends in the same physical space using split-screen or multiple screens
2-Players Play with one other player, either online or locally, in a cooperative or competitive game mode
Multi-Player Compete or cooperate with other players online
Single-Player Play through the game's story or campaign solo
PvP Player versus Player - Fight against other players in real-time, often in arena-style combat
Split Screen Play with multiple players on the same screen, often with divided or shared screen real estate

83%

Audience ScoreBased on 842 reviews

story52 positive mentions

graphics48 negative mentions

Deep and detailed tactical simulation of modern combat, offering a unique WEGO turn-based system that enhances strategic planning.
Highly immersive gameplay with realistic mechanics, where every decision impacts the outcome of battles, making it rewarding for players who enjoy military strategy.
Extensive modding community and user-generated content, providing additional scenarios and campaigns that enhance replayability.

Outdated graphics and engine performance issues, leading to low frame rates and a lack of visual polish that detracts from the overall experience.
High price point for the base game and DLCs, which some players feel does not reflect the amount of content or quality provided.
Steep learning curve with a complicated UI that can be frustrating for new players, requiring significant time investment to master.

story
344 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
15%
83%
2%
The story of "Combat Mission: Shock Force 2" revolves around a NATO invasion of Syria following a terrorist attack involving nuclear bombs. Players engage in realistic tactical simulations that emphasize the consequences of their decisions, with unit casualties affecting future missions. While the narrative framework is compelling, some players find the execution repetitive, with missions often following similar patterns and lacking significant gameplay balance.
- “In the game’s backstory, terrorists supported by the Syrian government detonate several 'dirty' nuclear bombs in several western cities, prompting a massive NATO effort to invade Syria.”
- “Also, the mission briefings and consequential casualties that carry through the campaign really make it feel like a journey you try to get all of your men through alive.”
- “Every mission is a challenge - not by itself but by the way which you are going to take to complete it, how to approach an objective on each mission is up to you.”
- “Overall, I was disappointed with Combat Mission Shock Force 2.”
- “No logic whatsoever, fail a mission, ok, let's go to the next one then... what the hell?”
- “In the game's backstory, terrorists supported by the Syrian government detonate several 'dirty' nuclear bombs in several western cities, prompting a massive NATO effort to invade Syria.”
graphics
206 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
11%
66%
23%
The graphics of the game have been widely criticized as outdated, with many reviewers noting they resemble visuals from the early 2000s or even earlier. While some players appreciate the depth of gameplay and modding options that can enhance visuals, the overall consensus is that the graphics are poor, clunky, and do not meet modern standards, leading to a perception of the game being overpriced for its visual quality. Despite these shortcomings, some players argue that the gameplay experience compensates for the lack of graphical fidelity.
- “Graphics are good, terrain is highly detailed and plays a huge role, there's a large disposition of multiple camera angles too.”
- “A strategy game that can be played in either real time or turn based, don't let the oldish graphics fool you, the gameplay, depths and unit detail are highly impressive, and while the terrain doesn't look great, you don't notice it.”
- “The graphics are a bit dated, but they still look good and graphics aren't everything.”
- “Graphics (4/10): very outdated graphics.”
- “The graphics in this game are about 20 years out of date, it really is terrible.”
- “Horrible graphics, game is incredibly laggy and just stops responding at times, horrible UI, horrible tutorial.”
gameplay
118 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
31%
61%
8%
The gameplay of this military simulation game is noted for its depth and complexity, offering a unique blend of real-time and turn-based mechanics that require strategic thinking and patience. However, players have criticized the dated engine, clunky interface, and certain mechanics like line of sight and infantry behavior, which can detract from the overall experience. Despite these issues, many find the gameplay rewarding once they grasp the mechanics, making it a compelling choice for fans of tactical simulations.
- “There is really nothing else like it in the strategy world, and it provides intense and strategic gameplay that really lets you fill the role of a commander.”
- “I learned the incredible depth of the mechanics and systems of the game, developed an appreciation for the skill level required to command battalion-level tactical operations, and the satisfaction that is gained from completing a mission with minimal casualties.”
- “If you put the time in to learn the mechanics, there are hours and I mean hours of game time ahead of you.”
- “The gameplay is buggy as hell and half the time it's a constant struggle to get your units to perform simple tasks.”
- “The worst mechanic of this game is the line of sight.”
- “The spotting mechanics are atrocious at short distances; the communication system needs an overhaul as the ability for troops not to talk to one another is completely immersion-breaking.”
optimization
54 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
7%
56%
37%
The game's optimization is widely criticized, with many users reporting poor performance even on high-end hardware, attributed to an outdated engine. While the depth of gameplay is appreciated, the clunky performance and graphical limitations significantly detract from the overall experience, leading to frustration among players. Many reviewers call for urgent updates to improve optimization and address persistent glitches.
- “Great series! To improve performance and low resolution on laptops: make sure combat mission titles are using your GPU and not integrated graphics.”
- “The performance really is the killer here; if you can get through that, you'll find a lovely wargame hidden deep beneath it.”
- “This is a pretty major strike for me, especially in the era where combat mission isn't the only game in town and other companies are making war games that look better and are better optimized.”
- “However, it's time to update the engine, guys. It runs poorly, and while we pretty much all enjoy the game, there's no excuse for producing 9 out of 10 games on (what the development team calls new) an engine that has the same poor performance with zero updates. Great series, horrendous business practices.”
- “This game is not worth the money; it has so many issues with performance that it makes no difference how high spec your computer is.”
- “A really good combined arms wargame, let down by an outdated engine with terrible performance.”
stability
14 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
14%
86%
The game's stability is a significant concern among users, with many reporting frequent bugs and performance issues that hinder gameplay. While it runs well on platforms like the Steam Deck, players have experienced frustrating glitches, such as unresponsive units and visual anomalies. Overall, the game is seen as interesting but in need of substantial updates to address these stability problems.
- “Old engine but good game, and it runs great on Steam Deck.”
- “The gameplay is buggy as hell and half the time it's a constant struggle to get your units to perform simple tasks.”
- “I mean, it's interesting, but sometimes it's buggy as hell and your soldiers are just blind sometimes.”
- “Update the performance issues and some of the effect glitches like the fire just being on the ground like a static picture. I bought it when it first came out on Battlefront, and none of these issues were present in that build.”
replayability
14 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
29%
50%
21%
The game offers significant replayability, particularly for military simulation enthusiasts, thanks to its depth, downloadable content, and a powerful scenario editor. However, some players note limitations in the number of scenarios and AI capabilities, which can reduce the overall replay value. Overall, it provides hours of engaging gameplay, though the experience may vary based on individual preferences.
- “You are paying for hours and hours of fun, detail, and replayability.”
- “Amazing game, a lot of replayability.”
- “The game is replayable but not as much as you might think due to not having that many scenarios and the AI in skirmish being unable to come up with overall battle plans, only able to make unit-by-unit responses.”
- “So the replay value of that scenario turns into remembering where the hidden insurgent unit was.”
- “The sheer depth and free downloadable missions give it a ton of replay value.”
grinding
4 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
Players note that grinding in the game involves tedious micromanagement, such as setting up waypoints for vehicles to avoid mines, which can be frustrating. However, those who appreciate wargames and realism may find this aspect rewarding despite its demands for patience.
- “The solution is to tediously set up waypoints every meter or so for every vehicle individually to try to make sure they don't hit a mine.”
- “This game does require some patience and tedious micromanaging, but if you are a fan of wargames and realism, then this game is for you.”
monetization
4 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
The monetization model of the game is criticized as being poor, overshadowed by misleading advertising. However, it does offer workshop support for players to enhance their experience with modern combat elements.
- “Granted they have a terrible monetization model as well, but they at least have workshop support for implementing modern combat elements and more.”
music
2 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
50%
50%
The game features classic, impactful menu music that some players find overwhelming, but it lacks volume sliders for customization, which limits the ability to adjust the audio experience.
- “You're hit with classic ear-rattling menu music, but there are no volume sliders in the game at all.”
atmosphere
2 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
The game's atmosphere is highly immersive, allowing players to overlook some of the less impressive textures and models due to the overall sense of realism it creates. This strong atmospheric presence significantly enhances the gaming experience.
- “You learn to drown out some of the poor textures or models because of how immersed you become in the atmosphere and realism.”